Re: proposal to move cogl, clutter and related recipes from oe-core to dedicated meta-clutter layer

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

On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 20:30 +0300, Richard Purdie wrote:
> I'd ask that we give trying to make this work from OE-Core a fair try. 
> 
> If in say 3 months from now OE-Core is causing clutter users pain we can
> look again at the problem. Equally, if nobody has sent me any clutter
> patches in the next three months, I wouldn't consider than a fair try.
> 
> I'm happy enough to see the clutter recipes architecture changed to
> better support their users. If that means adding some of the machine
> specific tweaks to the core as examples I'm also ok with that rather
> than forcing those into BSP layers. I'm not saying we'll take every
> machine entry into the core but enough to show its usages would be
> acceptable in my view.
> 
> I do agree with the view that we have enough mailing lists and so on and
> adding more is not appropriate where this is at right now.

Just to add, I went and looked at the code/data in meta-clutter again.
The README says "meta-clutter depends only on oe-core and is meant to be
used with the current stable release of it (currently dylan).".

How about the master branch gets renamed "dylan" so it clearly show what
its meant to work against and follows the other repositories?

I'd still propose we try and get the core pieces into OE-Core master so
there is no need for a master branch of that repo. Currently if you try
that repo with master, there will be duplicated sstate postfuncs being
run which are probably harmless. There are also other duplicated recipes
(master glib-2.0 is newer). Over time as master and dylan diverge there
probably will be worse compatibility issues.

Cheers,

Richard