Re: [PATCH 04/10] gtk.inc: add feature based on directfb

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 11:14 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 8 dec. 2011, om 10:34 heeft Xiaofeng Yan het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > From: Xiaofeng Yan <xiaofeng.yan@windriver.com>
> > 
> > gtk run over x11 at current OE-core. If gtk want to run over directfb, then \
> > the configuration related to x11 should be disabled and directfb should be enabled.
> 
> Since I still can't get an answer to "what happens when you enable
> both x11 and directfb as distro features", let me ask a different
> question:
>
> Why don't you do it like we did for gtk-directfb in OE-classic? add a
> cairo-directfb and a gtk-directfb, done.

This comes down to a policy decision I guess and I'm not sure there is a
clear cut answer.

The question is whether it makes sense to have directfb and X based gtk
in the same builds and package feeds or not. I can see that it might be
desired and that it likely is possible.

My personal take on that is that it depends how ugly the result is and
what demand there is for it. I do consider having the separate -directfb
recipes to be ugly and if we only need a cairo variant that might be ok,
if we need a ton of recipe forks I'd be much less keen. Doing separate
recipes like that is error prone and often not done well.

So can anyone tell me for sure exactly how many recipes would need
-directfb variants?

Cheers,

Richard