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

[Phil Blundell <pb@pbcl.net>]

On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 16:28 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> I agree but it seems it hadn't succeed in this specific case until
> now. I personally think Clutter will benefit from getting a specific
> place to look at and it does seem multiple people has been adding
> Clutter recipes in their internal layers (Phil for example, Guacamayo
> project and so on).

I did actually have a couple of goes at trying to factor out some of our
local changes to the clutter recipes for submission to oe-core, but on
each occasion I gave up because the effort seemed to outweigh the
benefits. 

For what it's worth, some of the ways in which our local recipes diverge
from what's in oe-core are:

- we have a different (newer) version

- we build from a local git checkout, srctree-style, because our sources
are significantly patched compared to upstream

- we use eglnative mostly, though we might start wanting to use glx
under qemu for testing (subject to getting a suitable mesa)

- we have a slightly funky 2-stage bootstrap process for cogl in order
to break the dependency cycle with cairo; this involves hacks to the
recipes for cogl, cairo, pango and harfbuzz (at least) which I suspect
would not be very palatable to oe-core.

The net result of all this is that, whenever I try to factor out a set
of stuff that's "generic clutter" and could go into oe-core, I end up
with recipes that have virtually nothing in common with what we're
actually using and consequently don't actually solve any of my problems.
However, I have no doubt that someone cleverer than me could do a better
job of it.

p.