From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id C4790E008CF; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:34:59 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] X-Greylist: delayed 399 seconds by postgrey-1.32 at yocto-www; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:34:57 PST Received: from starfish.geekisp.com (starfish.geekisp.com [216.168.135.166]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AE0BBE0087D for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:34:57 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 18530 invoked by uid 1003); 18 Nov 2014 21:28:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.109?) (philip@opensdr.com@71.171.45.99) by mail.geekisp.com with (DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 18 Nov 2014 21:28:16 -0000 Message-ID: <546BB9EF.4040807@balister.org> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:28:15 -0500 From: Philip Balister User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yocto Project Subject: Layer model doomed, unless we all work together X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:34:59 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit As evidence, please review this list: http://layers.openembedded.org/layerindex/branch/master/duplicates/ I mean FOUR recipes for alsa-plugins? I am trying to fix the pyqt recipe in meta-oe, and had th eidea to check for it in other layers. This leads me to meta-ivi-demo, which has an update for sip-native and another pyqt recipe. To be fair, they are using Qt5, so it is a little more complex. At any rate, we need to stop ripping recipes out of layers and maing local copies, or worse, updating our local copies and not the primary layer. The intent of the layer concept was not to fragment development across many separate repositories. I see a couple of issues we need to start talking about: 1) recipes that need to move closer to core because a range of other packages use them. 2) people feel they have to remove recipes from layers and make local copies. And just so people know what seriously pisses me off :) Copying a recipe from a layer, updating it, and not sending the recipe to the layer they got the update from. Thanks for letting me vent, Philip