From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.pbcl.net ([88.198.119.4] helo=hetzner.pbcl.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Rmrfr-0005T6-B8 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:52:55 +0100 Received: from 50-78-106-41-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([50.78.106.41] helo=[10.1.0.230]) by hetzner.pbcl.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RmrYX-0006jo-1T for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:45:21 +0100 Message-ID: <1326739512.3367.32.camel@pb-ThinkPad-R50e> From: Phil Blundell To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:45:12 +0000 In-Reply-To: References: <1326395831-5121-1-git-send-email-koen@dominion.thruhere.net> <1326737165.2933.7.camel@ted> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.1- Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Patch v3] gconf: enable gtk+ 2.0 support to build gconf-sanity-check-2 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: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:52:55 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 10:19 -0800, Steve Sakoman wrote: > My tested-by was indeed performed with the meta-oe layer enabled. > > In the future I will make clear what layers were used in my testing. > > I fear that this kind of thing is going to bite us repeatedly :-( It's never been entirely clear to me why meta-oe needs to override quite so many bits of oe-core as it does. I think you're probably right that, as long as it continues to do so, and people enable meta-oe during testing, this sort of issue probably is going to continue to occur. We had some discussion a while back about making the layer priority be a user-configurable thing, which would enable you to sink meta-oe beneath oe-core in the priority stack. This would allow you to use the recipes which are in meta-oe but not oe-core, without overriding the bits that do exist in oe-core itself. I think I lost that argument at the time but I still feel this would be an improvement. (Actually, right now what I am doing is just cherry-picking the few recipes that I need from meta-oe into a local layer and not adding meta-oe itself to bblayers.conf at all.) p.