[RFC] Working toward a GNOME layer

[RFC] Working toward a GNOME layer

[Koen Kooi]

Hi,

Now that I finally have an image that boots into an E17 gui I can focus on making an image that boots into a GNOME desktop. The gnome bits are current scattered over different layers:

oe-core
meta-demoapps
meta-oe
meta-shr

and possibly more. I would like to create a meta-gnome layer in the meta-openembedded repository where new recipes get added and things from meta-demoapps can get moved over into. Long term recipes-gnome in oe-core should move there as well.

What are your thoughts on this?

regards,

Koen

Re: [RFC] Working toward a GNOME layer

[Paul Eggleton]

On Thursday 21 April 2011 15:02:49 Koen Kooi wrote:
> and possibly more. I would like to create a meta-gnome layer in the
> meta-openembedded repository where new recipes get added and things from
> meta-demoapps can get moved over into. Long term recipes-gnome in oe-core
> should move there as well.
> 
> What are your thoughts on this?

From my perspective this sounds like a great idea. The only question would be 
how much of the "GNOME" libs would remain in oe-core as some of them are quite 
widely used outside of GNOME proper; however that can easily be worked out as 
these things mature.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre (UK)

Re: [RFC] Working toward a GNOME layer

[Joshua Lock]

On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 16:05 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Thursday 21 April 2011 15:02:49 Koen Kooi wrote:
> > and possibly more. I would like to create a meta-gnome layer in the
> > meta-openembedded repository where new recipes get added and things from
> > meta-demoapps can get moved over into. Long term recipes-gnome in oe-core
> > should move there as well.
> > 
> > What are your thoughts on this?

+1

> 
> From my perspective this sounds like a great idea. The only question would be 
> how much of the "GNOME" libs would remain in oe-core as some of them are quite 
> widely used outside of GNOME proper; however that can easily be worked out as 
> these things mature.

+1

My personal opinion would be that we start with glib & gtk+ (plus their
dependencies, i.e. pango, atk, etc) in core and move the rest out to a
layer.

I feel that Gtk+ is used by enough non-gnome software that it belongs in
core but others may disagree?

Between meta/recipes-gnome and meta-demoapps we have a reasonable start
to a meta-gnome/

I'd be happy to help with this layer.

Cheers,
Joshua
-- 
Joshua Lock
        Yocto Build System Monkey
        Intel Open Source Technology Center

Re: [RFC] Working toward a GNOME layer

[Koen Kooi]

Op 21 apr 2011, om 18:40 heeft Joshua Lock het volgende geschreven:

> On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 16:05 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote:
>> On Thursday 21 April 2011 15:02:49 Koen Kooi wrote:
>>> and possibly more. I would like to create a meta-gnome layer in the
>>> meta-openembedded repository where new recipes get added and things from
>>> meta-demoapps can get moved over into. Long term recipes-gnome in oe-core
>>> should move there as well.
>>> 
>>> What are your thoughts on this?
> 
> +1
> 
>> 
>> From my perspective this sounds like a great idea. The only question would be 
>> how much of the "GNOME" libs would remain in oe-core as some of them are quite 
>> widely used outside of GNOME proper; however that can easily be worked out as 
>> these things mature.
> 
> +1
> 
> My personal opinion would be that we start with glib & gtk+ (plus their
> dependencies, i.e. pango, atk, etc) in core and move the rest out to a
> layer.
> 
> I feel that Gtk+ is used by enough non-gnome software that it belongs in
> core but others may disagree?
> 
> Between meta/recipes-gnome and meta-demoapps we have a reasonable start
> to a meta-gnome/

Where did meta-demoapps go? It's not in OE-core anymore by the looks of it.

> I'd be happy to help with this layer.

Awesome, do you have any objection to put meta-gnome into the meta-openembedded repo for the time being? Once we get better tooling we can move it elsewhere, of course.

regards,

Koen

Re: [RFC] Working toward a GNOME layer

[Joshua Lock]

On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 19:29 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 21 apr 2011, om 18:40 heeft Joshua Lock het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 16:05 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> >> On Thursday 21 April 2011 15:02:49 Koen Kooi wrote:
> >>> and possibly more. I would like to create a meta-gnome layer in the
> >>> meta-openembedded repository where new recipes get added and things from
> >>> meta-demoapps can get moved over into. Long term recipes-gnome in oe-core
> >>> should move there as well.
> >>> 
> >>> What are your thoughts on this?
> > 
> > +1
> > 
> >> 
> >> From my perspective this sounds like a great idea. The only question would be 
> >> how much of the "GNOME" libs would remain in oe-core as some of them are quite 
> >> widely used outside of GNOME proper; however that can easily be worked out as 
> >> these things mature.
> > 
> > +1
> > 
> > My personal opinion would be that we start with glib & gtk+ (plus their
> > dependencies, i.e. pango, atk, etc) in core and move the rest out to a
> > layer.
> > 
> > I feel that Gtk+ is used by enough non-gnome software that it belongs in
> > core but others may disagree?
> > 
> > Between meta/recipes-gnome and meta-demoapps we have a reasonable start
> > to a meta-gnome/
> 
> Where did meta-demoapps go? It's not in OE-core anymore by the looks of it.

Hmm, still exists for me:

joshual@vorpal:~/Projects/Yocto/oe-core/meta-demoapps[master]
$ pwd
/home/joshual/Projects/Yocto/oe-core/meta-demoapps


> 
> > I'd be happy to help with this layer.
> 
> Awesome, do you have any objection to put meta-gnome into the meta-openembedded repo for the time being? Once we get better tooling we can move it elsewhere, of course.

None whatsoever. I keep meaning to push some recipes into that layer
anyway.

Cheers,
Joshua
-- 
Joshua Lock
        Yocto Build System Monkey
        Intel Open Source Technology Center

Re: [RFC] Working toward a GNOME layer

[Koen Kooi]

Op 21 apr 2011, om 19:41 heeft Joshua Lock het volgende geschreven:

> On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 19:29 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Op 21 apr 2011, om 18:40 heeft Joshua Lock het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 16:05 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote:
>>>> On Thursday 21 April 2011 15:02:49 Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>>> and possibly more. I would like to create a meta-gnome layer in the
>>>>> meta-openembedded repository where new recipes get added and things from
>>>>> meta-demoapps can get moved over into. Long term recipes-gnome in oe-core
>>>>> should move there as well.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What are your thoughts on this?
>>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From my perspective this sounds like a great idea. The only question would be 
>>>> how much of the "GNOME" libs would remain in oe-core as some of them are quite 
>>>> widely used outside of GNOME proper; however that can easily be worked out as 
>>>> these things mature.
>>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> My personal opinion would be that we start with glib & gtk+ (plus their
>>> dependencies, i.e. pango, atk, etc) in core and move the rest out to a
>>> layer.
>>> 
>>> I feel that Gtk+ is used by enough non-gnome software that it belongs in
>>> core but others may disagree?
>>> 
>>> Between meta/recipes-gnome and meta-demoapps we have a reasonable start
>>> to a meta-gnome/
>> 
>> Where did meta-demoapps go? It's not in OE-core anymore by the looks of it.
> 
> Hmm, still exists for me:
> 
> joshual@vorpal:~/Projects/Yocto/oe-core/meta-demoapps[master]
> $ pwd
> /home/joshual/Projects/Yocto/oe-core/meta-demoapps

Ah, I see why:

koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle$ find sources/openembedded-core/ -name "layer.conf"
sources/openembedded-core/meta/conf/layer.conf
sources/openembedded-core/meta-rt/conf/layer.conf
koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle$ 

it has no layer.conf :)

Re: [RFC] Working toward a GNOME layer

[Koen Kooi]

Op 21 apr 2011, om 19:41 heeft Joshua Lock het volgende geschreven:

> On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 19:29 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Op 21 apr 2011, om 18:40 heeft Joshua Lock het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 16:05 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote:
>>>> On Thursday 21 April 2011 15:02:49 Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>>> and possibly more. I would like to create a meta-gnome layer in the
>>>>> meta-openembedded repository where new recipes get added and things from
>>>>> meta-demoapps can get moved over into. Long term recipes-gnome in oe-core
>>>>> should move there as well.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What are your thoughts on this?
>>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From my perspective this sounds like a great idea. The only question would be 
>>>> how much of the "GNOME" libs would remain in oe-core as some of them are quite 
>>>> widely used outside of GNOME proper; however that can easily be worked out as 
>>>> these things mature.
>>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> My personal opinion would be that we start with glib & gtk+ (plus their
>>> dependencies, i.e. pango, atk, etc) in core and move the rest out to a
>>> layer.
>>> 
>>> I feel that Gtk+ is used by enough non-gnome software that it belongs in
>>> core but others may disagree?
>>> 
>>> Between meta/recipes-gnome and meta-demoapps we have a reasonable start
>>> to a meta-gnome/
>> 
>> Where did meta-demoapps go? It's not in OE-core anymore by the looks of it.
> 
> Hmm, still exists for me:
> 
> joshual@vorpal:~/Projects/Yocto/oe-core/meta-demoapps[master]
> $ pwd
> /home/joshual/Projects/Yocto/oe-core/meta-demoapps
> 
> 
>> 
>>> I'd be happy to help with this layer.
>> 
>> Awesome, do you have any objection to put meta-gnome into the meta-openembedded repo for the time being? Once we get better tooling we can move it elsewhere, of course.
> 
> None whatsoever. I keep meaning to push some recipes into that layer
> anyway.

I just sent out 10 patches for review that import recipes-gnome from meta-demoapps into meta-gnome. Please review :)

regards,

Koen

Re: [RFC] Working toward a GNOME layer

[Joshua Lock]

On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 20:12 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 21 apr 2011, om 19:41 heeft Joshua Lock het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 19:29 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> Op 21 apr 2011, om 18:40 heeft Joshua Lock het volgende geschreven:
> >> 
> >>> On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 16:05 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday 21 April 2011 15:02:49 Koen Kooi wrote:
> >>>>> and possibly more. I would like to create a meta-gnome layer in the
> >>>>> meta-openembedded repository where new recipes get added and things from
> >>>>> meta-demoapps can get moved over into. Long term recipes-gnome in oe-core
> >>>>> should move there as well.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> What are your thoughts on this?
> >>> 
> >>> +1
> >>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> From my perspective this sounds like a great idea. The only question would be 
> >>>> how much of the "GNOME" libs would remain in oe-core as some of them are quite 
> >>>> widely used outside of GNOME proper; however that can easily be worked out as 
> >>>> these things mature.
> >>> 
> >>> +1
> >>> 
> >>> My personal opinion would be that we start with glib & gtk+ (plus their
> >>> dependencies, i.e. pango, atk, etc) in core and move the rest out to a
> >>> layer.
> >>> 
> >>> I feel that Gtk+ is used by enough non-gnome software that it belongs in
> >>> core but others may disagree?
> >>> 
> >>> Between meta/recipes-gnome and meta-demoapps we have a reasonable start
> >>> to a meta-gnome/
> >> 
> >> Where did meta-demoapps go? It's not in OE-core anymore by the looks of it.
> > 
> > Hmm, still exists for me:
> > 
> > joshual@vorpal:~/Projects/Yocto/oe-core/meta-demoapps[master]
> > $ pwd
> > /home/joshual/Projects/Yocto/oe-core/meta-demoapps
> > 
> > 
> >> 
> >>> I'd be happy to help with this layer.
> >> 
> >> Awesome, do you have any objection to put meta-gnome into the meta-openembedded repo for the time being? Once we get better tooling we can move it elsewhere, of course.
> > 
> > None whatsoever. I keep meaning to push some recipes into that layer
> > anyway.
> 
> I just sent out 10 patches for review that import recipes-gnome from meta-demoapps into meta-gnome. Please review :)

The way I see it there are two approaches, tidy & test the recipes then
merge *or* merge then fix.

If we're going for the latter approach let's get your patches merged!

This does raise another question, is meta-oe striving for the same
standards of metadata as oe-core? i.e. SRC_URI & license checksums,
updated patch syntax, etc.

Also, how much gnome do we want to support? Are we trying to be all new
and shiny and drop deprecated libraries (gnome-vfs)?

Just trying to work out what patches to work on ;-) Perhaps we can
define a policy of what's appropriate for the layer in a README?

Cheers,
Joshua
-- 
Joshua Lock
        Yocto Build System Monkey
        Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [RFC] Working toward a GNOME layer

[Koen Kooi]

Op 22 apr 2011, om 18:23 heeft Joshua Lock het volgende geschreven:

> On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 20:12 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Op 21 apr 2011, om 19:41 heeft Joshua Lock het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 19:29 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>> Op 21 apr 2011, om 18:40 heeft Joshua Lock het volgende geschreven:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 16:05 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday 21 April 2011 15:02:49 Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>>>>> and possibly more. I would like to create a meta-gnome layer in the
>>>>>>> meta-openembedded repository where new recipes get added and things from
>>>>>>> meta-demoapps can get moved over into. Long term recipes-gnome in oe-core
>>>>>>> should move there as well.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What are your thoughts on this?
>>>>> 
>>>>> +1
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From my perspective this sounds like a great idea. The only question would be 
>>>>>> how much of the "GNOME" libs would remain in oe-core as some of them are quite 
>>>>>> widely used outside of GNOME proper; however that can easily be worked out as 
>>>>>> these things mature.
>>>>> 
>>>>> +1
>>>>> 
>>>>> My personal opinion would be that we start with glib & gtk+ (plus their
>>>>> dependencies, i.e. pango, atk, etc) in core and move the rest out to a
>>>>> layer.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I feel that Gtk+ is used by enough non-gnome software that it belongs in
>>>>> core but others may disagree?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Between meta/recipes-gnome and meta-demoapps we have a reasonable start
>>>>> to a meta-gnome/
>>>> 
>>>> Where did meta-demoapps go? It's not in OE-core anymore by the looks of it.
>>> 
>>> Hmm, still exists for me:
>>> 
>>> joshual@vorpal:~/Projects/Yocto/oe-core/meta-demoapps[master]
>>> $ pwd
>>> /home/joshual/Projects/Yocto/oe-core/meta-demoapps
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> I'd be happy to help with this layer.
>>>> 
>>>> Awesome, do you have any objection to put meta-gnome into the meta-openembedded repo for the time being? Once we get better tooling we can move it elsewhere, of course.
>>> 
>>> None whatsoever. I keep meaning to push some recipes into that layer
>>> anyway.
>> 
>> I just sent out 10 patches for review that import recipes-gnome from meta-demoapps into meta-gnome. Please review :)
> 
> The way I see it there are two approaches, tidy & test the recipes then
> merge *or* merge then fix.
> 
> If we're going for the latter approach let's get your patches merged!

While I'd love the first approach, the second is a lot more practical for 'yocto' recipes, I would reserve the vetting for the ones imported from OE. Does that sound OK?

> This does raise another question, is meta-oe striving for the same
> standards of metadata as oe-core? i.e. SRC_URI & license checksums,
> updated patch syntax, etc.

It does, but it still has crud in it from "the early days" which needs to get cleaned up. No license checksum is fatal, so that one is covered, but the source checksums aren't.  I would be nice to make the following errors fatal (if they haven't already):

1) license checksums
2) LDFLAGS (gnu-hash)
3) source checksums

> Also, how much gnome do we want to support? Are we trying to be all new
> and shiny and drop deprecated libraries (gnome-vfs)?

Personally I would go for importing 2.30 from OE and see if there are 2.32 updates available. 2.30 should be relatively gnome-vfs free. So for this specific example, let's try to avoid gnome-vfs. In a broader sense, let's get gnome 2 in and look at gnome 3 later. I suspect gnome 3 will be a world of hurt with its clutter and hence openGL requirements.

> Just trying to work out what patches to work on ;-)

Which reminds me, the gtk+ in meta-oe needs to get compared to the one in oe-core to see what's different, I don't want to keep a copy in meta-oe.

> Perhaps we can
> define a policy of what's appropriate for the layer in a README?

Are you volunteering to draft a README? If so, go for it :)

regards,

Koen

Re: [RFC] Working toward a GNOME layer

[Joshua Lock]

On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 19:34 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 22 apr 2011, om 18:23 heeft Joshua Lock het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 20:12 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> Op 21 apr 2011, om 19:41 heeft Joshua Lock het volgende geschreven:
> >> 
> >>> On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 19:29 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >>>> Op 21 apr 2011, om 18:40 heeft Joshua Lock het volgende geschreven:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 16:05 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday 21 April 2011 15:02:49 Koen Kooi wrote:
> >>>>>>> and possibly more. I would like to create a meta-gnome layer in the
> >>>>>>> meta-openembedded repository where new recipes get added and things from
> >>>>>>> meta-demoapps can get moved over into. Long term recipes-gnome in oe-core
> >>>>>>> should move there as well.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> What are your thoughts on this?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> From my perspective this sounds like a great idea. The only question would be 
> >>>>>> how much of the "GNOME" libs would remain in oe-core as some of them are quite 
> >>>>>> widely used outside of GNOME proper; however that can easily be worked out as 
> >>>>>> these things mature.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> My personal opinion would be that we start with glib & gtk+ (plus their
> >>>>> dependencies, i.e. pango, atk, etc) in core and move the rest out to a
> >>>>> layer.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I feel that Gtk+ is used by enough non-gnome software that it belongs in
> >>>>> core but others may disagree?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Between meta/recipes-gnome and meta-demoapps we have a reasonable start
> >>>>> to a meta-gnome/
> >>>> 
> >>>> Where did meta-demoapps go? It's not in OE-core anymore by the looks of it.
> >>> 
> >>> Hmm, still exists for me:
> >>> 
> >>> joshual@vorpal:~/Projects/Yocto/oe-core/meta-demoapps[master]
> >>> $ pwd
> >>> /home/joshual/Projects/Yocto/oe-core/meta-demoapps
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>>> I'd be happy to help with this layer.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Awesome, do you have any objection to put meta-gnome into the meta-openembedded repo for the time being? Once we get better tooling we can move it elsewhere, of course.
> >>> 
> >>> None whatsoever. I keep meaning to push some recipes into that layer
> >>> anyway.
> >> 
> >> I just sent out 10 patches for review that import recipes-gnome from meta-demoapps into meta-gnome. Please review :)
> > 
> > The way I see it there are two approaches, tidy & test the recipes then
> > merge *or* merge then fix.
> > 
> > If we're going for the latter approach let's get your patches merged!
> 
> While I'd love the first approach, the second is a lot more practical
> for 'yocto' recipes, I would reserve the vetting for the ones imported
> from OE. Does that sound OK?

Agreed.

> 
> > This does raise another question, is meta-oe striving for the same
> > standards of metadata as oe-core? i.e. SRC_URI & license checksums,
> > updated patch syntax, etc.
> 
> It does, but it still has crud in it from "the early days" which needs
> to get cleaned up. No license checksum is fatal, so that one is
> covered, but the source checksums aren't.  I would be nice to make the
> following errors fatal (if they haven't already):
> 
> 1) license checksums
> 2) LDFLAGS (gnu-hash)
> 3) source checksums

Bug report in email? :-)

> 
> > Also, how much gnome do we want to support? Are we trying to be all new
> > and shiny and drop deprecated libraries (gnome-vfs)?
> 
> Personally I would go for importing 2.30 from OE and see if there are
> 2.32 updates available. 2.30 should be relatively gnome-vfs free. So
> for this specific example, let's try to avoid gnome-vfs. In a broader
> sense, let's get gnome 2 in and look at gnome 3 later. I suspect gnome
> 3 will be a world of hurt with its clutter and hence openGL
> requirements.

I agree with this approach. I think the gobject-introspection will be a
bigger pain point than GL though.

> 
> > Just trying to work out what patches to work on ;-)
> 
> Which reminds me, the gtk+ in meta-oe needs to get compared to the one
> in oe-core to see what's different, I don't want to keep a copy in
> meta-oe.
> 
> > Perhaps we can
> > define a policy of what's appropriate for the layer in a README?
> 
> Are you volunteering to draft a README? If so, go for it :)

I guess so. I'll try and submit some patches.

Joshua
-- 
Joshua Lock
        Yocto Build System Monkey
        Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [RFC] Working toward a GNOME layer

[Saul Wold]

On 04/21/2011 10:29 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>
> Op 21 apr 2011, om 18:40 heeft Joshua Lock het volgende geschreven:
>
>> On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 16:05 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote:
>>> On Thursday 21 April 2011 15:02:49 Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>> and possibly more. I would like to create a meta-gnome layer in the
>>>> meta-openembedded repository where new recipes get added and things from
>>>> meta-demoapps can get moved over into. Long term recipes-gnome in oe-core
>>>> should move there as well.
>>>>
>>>> What are your thoughts on this?
>>
>> +1
>>
>>>
>>>  From my perspective this sounds like a great idea. The only question would be
>>> how much of the "GNOME" libs would remain in oe-core as some of them are quite
>>> widely used outside of GNOME proper; however that can easily be worked out as
>>> these things mature.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> My personal opinion would be that we start with glib&  gtk+ (plus their
>> dependencies, i.e. pango, atk, etc) in core and move the rest out to a
>> layer.
>>
>> I feel that Gtk+ is used by enough non-gnome software that it belongs in
>> core but others may disagree?
>>
I agree with Joshua here, I think that we need to keep some amount of 
core gnome libraries in oe-core.

>> Between meta/recipes-gnome and meta-demoapps we have a reasonable start
>> to a meta-gnome/
>
> Where did meta-demoapps go? It's not in OE-core anymore by the looks of it.
>
Still there for me.

>> I'd be happy to help with this layer.
>
> Awesome, do you have any objection to put meta-gnome into the meta-openembedded repo for the time being? Once we get better tooling we can move it elsewhere, of course.
>
Why not on git.yoctoproject.org? We already have the start of various 
meta-* layers there?

Sau!


> regards,
>
> Koen
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: [RFC] Working toward a GNOME layer

[Richard Purdie]

On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 09:40 -0700, Joshua Lock wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 16:05 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > On Thursday 21 April 2011 15:02:49 Koen Kooi wrote:
> > > and possibly more. I would like to create a meta-gnome layer in the
> > > meta-openembedded repository where new recipes get added and things from
> > > meta-demoapps can get moved over into. Long term recipes-gnome in oe-core
> > > should move there as well.
> > > 
> > > What are your thoughts on this?
> 
> +1
> 
> > 
> > From my perspective this sounds like a great idea. The only question would be 
> > how much of the "GNOME" libs would remain in oe-core as some of them are quite 
> > widely used outside of GNOME proper; however that can easily be worked out as 
> > these things mature.
> 
> +1
> 
> My personal opinion would be that we start with glib & gtk+ (plus their
> dependencies, i.e. pango, atk, etc) in core and move the rest out to a
> layer.

Do we move out sato as well?

> I feel that Gtk+ is used by enough non-gnome software that it belongs in
> core but others may disagree?

I think it needs to be in the core as we need something there to test
X/graphics and so forth. This implies we need sato and its dependencies
there too though (which are thankfully minimal by design).

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [RFC] Working toward a GNOME layer

[Joshua Lock]

On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 20:23 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 09:40 -0700, Joshua Lock wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 16:05 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > > On Thursday 21 April 2011 15:02:49 Koen Kooi wrote:
> > > > and possibly more. I would like to create a meta-gnome layer in the
> > > > meta-openembedded repository where new recipes get added and things from
> > > > meta-demoapps can get moved over into. Long term recipes-gnome in oe-core
> > > > should move there as well.
> > > > 
> > > > What are your thoughts on this?
> > 
> > +1
> > 
> > > 
> > > From my perspective this sounds like a great idea. The only question would be 
> > > how much of the "GNOME" libs would remain in oe-core as some of them are quite 
> > > widely used outside of GNOME proper; however that can easily be worked out as 
> > > these things mature.
> > 
> > +1
> > 
> > My personal opinion would be that we start with glib & gtk+ (plus their
> > dependencies, i.e. pango, atk, etc) in core and move the rest out to a
> > layer.
> 
> Do we move out sato as well?
> 
> > I feel that Gtk+ is used by enough non-gnome software that it belongs in
> > core but others may disagree?
> 
> I think it needs to be in the core as we need something there to test
> X/graphics and so forth. This implies we need sato and its dependencies
> there too though (which are thankfully minimal by design).

I don't disagree with the need for a GUI in the core, my only concern is
that we'll have old/deprecated libraries in oe-core unless we find some
time to update Sato a bit.

Note: this is still on my To Do but isn't as high a priority as I might
like.

Cheers,
Joshua
-- 
Joshua Lock
        Yocto Build System Monkey
        Intel Open Source Technology Centre