From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QDJCk-000324-D1 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 18:27:38 +0200 Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 Apr 2011 09:25:12 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,254,1301900400"; d="scan'208";a="632710507" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.12.218]) ([10.255.12.218]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 Apr 2011 09:25:12 -0700 From: Joshua Lock To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 09:25:11 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1303413834.5518.361.camel@rex> References: <8313867A-EA5C-473D-A82B-D8338186BF5F@dominion.thruhere.net> <201104211605.28351.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> <1303404025.9960.6.camel@vorpal> <1303413834.5518.361.camel@rex> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.0 (3.0.0-1.fc15) Message-ID: <1303489512.2293.7.camel@scimitar> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC] Working toward a GNOME layer 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: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:27:38 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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