From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C786760D2D; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 11:22:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Jan 2014 03:22:57 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,612,1384329600"; d="scan'208";a="434436285" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.122.119]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Jan 2014 03:22:56 -0800 From: Paul Eggleton To: Martin Jansa Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 11:22:55 +0000 Message-ID: <1424614.QymdokhKXO@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.10.5 (Linux/3.8.0-34-generic; KDE/4.10.5; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20131224105050.GX3706@jama> References: <52B8DECA.6060704@balister.org> <20131224105050.GX3706@jama> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org, openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [oe] Piglit in Poky X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 06 Jan 2014 11:22:57 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Tuesday 24 December 2013 11:50:50 Martin Jansa wrote: > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 08:09:30PM -0500, Philip Balister wrote: > > On 12/23/2013 01:01 PM, Burton, Ross wrote: > > > We'd like to integrate Piglit (an OpenGL test suite) into Poky so that > > > we can run automated QA on the GL stack. Piglit is currently residing > > > in meta-oe, but as Poky is a self-contained project we can't just add > > > meta-oe to it: apart from the size of meta-oe, we can't ensure > > > stability if meta-oe makes incompatible changes that affect Poky. > > > > > > Piglit isn't a stand-alone package, there are the dependencies of > > > waffle, python-mako and python-numpy to consider too. There are two > > > possibilities I can see: > > > > > > 1) Move piglit and deps to oe-core. Piglit is for QA purposes only > > > and pushes the boundaries of "core platform". In a sense this is a > > > repeat of the discussion we had with Midori... does oe-core contain > > > everything needed to sufficiently exercise the core components it > > > ships or not? > > > > I expect Richard will push back on this, and I would support him here. > > > > > 2) Add piglit and deps to meta-yocto. Probably a new layer called > > > meta-yocto-qa (or similar) because the Yocto Compatible guidelines > > > forbid mixing distribution policy and recipes. We'd need to sync > > > meta-yocto-qa with the pieces of meta-oe that we want somehow, but > > > that's our problem. > > > > So meta-yocto is right out. I'm a user of numpy, and I certainly do not > > want to include something called meta-yocto-qa just to pick up numpy. > > > > So this presents a quandry. Moving numpy to a special layer to support a > > specific recipe is just not the right thing to do. Conceivably, we could > > create a layer for the bits of meta-oe that are python related, but I am > > not sure that solves your entire problem. > > > > I certainly do not want to see one recipe appear in two layers. That is > > a recipe for trouble. > > > > Long term, we need to make the layer model work for the entire project > > and get over the reluctance to use other peoples layers. > > Agreed, meta-python in meta-oe repository sounds a lot better than > having the same recipe in 2 layers. FWIW, independent of this issue I'd like to see us have a meta-python layer in the meta-openembedded repo anyway. I'll even volunteer to maintain it if it helps. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre