From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SV9Ej-0007Rc-6z for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 18 May 2012 00:31:57 +0200 Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 May 2012 15:21:53 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="scan'208";a="167821152" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.120.128]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 May 2012 15:21:52 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: Otavio Salvador Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 23:21:51 +0100 Message-ID: <2622747.VEgA05EEDD@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.8.2 (Linux/3.2.0-24-generic-pae; KDE/4.8.2; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <1337074341-12708-1-git-send-email-koen@dominion.thruhere.net> <30398737.cYKCjogiDH@helios> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "kmod: Use base_libdir for installing libkmod" X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 22:31:57 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Thursday 17 May 2012 19:11:20 Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Paul Eggleton > wrote: > > On Thursday 17 May 2012 18:51:05 Otavio Salvador wrote: > >> It is important to state that if OE-Core breaks Meta-OE this is > >> crticial. It is not Yocto that people use and many active contributors > >> use Meta-OE so it is important and critical to that people. Seems more > >> health to the project to give the deserved value to Meta-OE instead of > >> badmouth it... > > > > The sooner people can start using it without fear of it doing unexpected > > things, the sooner people will be able to have more confidence in it and > > stop making negative comments about it. As it stands the way a lot of > > people treat meta-oe is a source of recipes to be copied elsewhere > > because they feel they cannot use the layer as a whole. I think that's a > > big shame. > > Agreed; the nice thing about Free Software is that we can do something > about it; do negative comments help nothing. > > Most people on Yocto do not contribute actively to Meta-OE. As > example, you did 12 commits in total to it... No, we don't, but that's probably because we have our hands full maintaining BitBake and OE-Core (with the help of others in the community, of course). Not to mention that when we do enable it on top of OE-Core / Poky without wanting to use systemd, it makes a whole raft of changes that usually cause breakage of some kind because that configuration is rarely tested. This just makes using and contributing to meta-oe harder. We really do recognise that there has to be a source of recipes outside OE- Core, and meta-oe is the current place for a lot of those. However there is just so much work to be done on BitBake and OE-Core that venturing into meta- oe as well is something a lot of us don't have time for in our daily work, especially with its current state. I do use meta-oe when I'm building stuff at home but there I more or less have my hands full maintaining meta-handheld, meta-opie and a bunch of other things. I hope during the current development cycle that I will have time to contribute to meta-oe further. I can't make any promises though. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre