From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by mx1.pokylinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 992874C80479 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 21:03:51 -0600 (CST) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Mar 2011 19:03:51 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.62,251,1297065600"; d="scan'208";a="715002456" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.12.100]) ([10.255.12.100]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Mar 2011 19:03:50 -0800 Message-ID: <4D6DB396.8020905@intel.com> Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 19:03:50 -0800 From: Saul Wold User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100621 Fedora/3.0.5-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Hatle References: <201103011023.58911.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> <34ADCD70-E17B-459F-88E7-D959B0DB4737@dominion.thruhere.net> <201103011624.06798.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> <4D6D9E1C.6010104@windriver.com> <4D6D9F1F.8020705@windriver.com> In-Reply-To: <4D6D9F1F.8020705@windriver.com> Cc: poky@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add qt3 to poky X-BeenThere: poky@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Poky build system developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 03:03:51 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 03/01/2011 05:36 PM, Mark Hatle wrote: > I think we should be sure to clearly label the Qt3 as only provided for LSB > compatibility in the recipe, that way if someone tries to use it, they can > understand why it was added/maintained. > Mark, I thought we talked about this before, I did not think we where going for 100% compliant in core yocto, and if needed, this can be part of the WR layer in order to complete compliance. I don't think we want to carry around a recipe that is purely for compatibility at that level. Sau! > --Mark > > On 3/1/11 7:32 PM, Xiaofeng Yan wrote: >> On 2011年03月02日 00:24, Paul Eggleton wrote: >>> On Tuesday 01 March 2011 10:33:08 you wrote: >>>> And since there was never a qtopia for qt3 I highly doubt anyone is using >>>> qt3/e. >>> Well, you never know what people are doing behind closed doors. There was also >>> once a version of SystemRescueCD that was using the then-current version of >>> QtParted with Qt/Embedded 3.x to avoid including X. >>> >>> For our purposes though it's only for LSB at this stage, so embedded appears >>> to be superfluous. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Paul >>> _______________________________________________ >>> poky mailing list >>> poky@yoctoproject.org >>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky >>> >> Hi All, >> >> Qt3 could be superfluous because qt4 can include qt3 functions. But the >> most important is that our lsb-image must meet LSB's requirement. >> Otherwise our yocto can't be permitted to use the LSB Certified >> trademark. So qt3 is just for passing LSB test on lsb-image. >> >> Thanks >> Yan >> _______________________________________________ >> poky mailing list >> poky@yoctoproject.org >> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky > > _______________________________________________ > poky mailing list > poky@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky