From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 15:47:13 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v10 00/28] efl bump to 1.15.2 In-Reply-To: <56756A03.7050701@openwide.fr> References: <1450219240-16938-1-git-send-email-romain.naour@openwide.fr> <20151218001144.5a685de2@free-electrons.com> <56756A03.7050701@openwide.fr> Message-ID: <20151219154713.0084f003@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Romain Naour, On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 15:30:27 +0100, Romain Naour wrote: > > To be honest, with the version number now being shared with just libefl > > and libelementary, I am not sure it is really worth the effort to have > > a package/efl/ directory with those two packages. What about making > > them normal top-level packages ? > > This is what I wanted to do initially (in v3): > - move all old efl package outside of package/efl/ [1] > - add a new package efl [2] > > [1] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/528603/ > [2] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/528573/ > > But someone asked me to keep in sync libelementary and efl, so I introduced the > libefl package in the followup series. > > Now, we can move libelementary and libefl to package/ directory. > And even rename libefl to efl because all packages that use efl libraries > depends on BR2_PACKAGE_EFL. > > Thoughts ? As said on IRC, I think it's better to have just package/efl/ and package/elementary/. Having a subdirectory for just two components that currently share their version, but for which there is no clear statement from upstream that they will always been doing in-sync releases, is not a good idea IMO. Let's have two separate normal packages. Thanks, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com