From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dan.rpsys.net (5751f4a1.skybroadband.com [87.81.244.161]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B1D97391A for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:42:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id t7LMg5C5011031; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 23:42:05 +0100 Received: from dan.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id cWd2WKbKXGQu; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 23:42:05 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id t7LMfqfK011028 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 21 Aug 2015 23:42:03 +0100 Message-ID: <1440196912.12105.279.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: Richard Purdie To: Otavio Salvador Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 23:41:52 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <1440153906.12105.233.camel@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.11-0ubuntu3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Paul Eggleton , Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] classes/whitelist: add class to allow whitelisting recipes from a layer 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: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:42:13 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2015-08-21 at 18:43 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Khem Raj wrote: > > All points here are valid. We already see this with distro's which use > > layers verbatim e.g. angstrom > > I wish everyone derived their distros that way since that respects the > > layer boundaries, a good chunk of work > > there is still we send patches to layers to keep them up to date with > > changes in other layers and there still are patches > > pending since every layer maintainer doesnt respond in sam time frame, > > but this sort of facilities if added is just going to worsen that > > workload. > > I think amalgmation of layers start with use of combo-tool itself. > > This patch just takes it a step further. If we want to preserve > > the layer model's health we have to work towards respecting layer > > boundaries and I would even go a step further and suggest to > > discourage use of combo-tool or any sort of layer squashing. > > I fully agree; in fact Poky itself is a bad example that I often have > to explain for vendors. People justify putting several layers together > in same repository saying that Poky does that and this is a > contradiction which we need to justify as Yocto Project promotes the > use of layers as one of most preeminent features but Poky does the > opposite ... Another way of looking at the issues people are having is that meta-openembedded is simply too large and it really needs to get split up into separate repos so people can get more granularity. That is both technically hard in some ways and controversial and nobody wants to step up and try and form a consensus about doing it though. I would note the internal splits are a good start though and there is some separation of maintainership happened there already. On the subject of poky, right from the start poky was a subset of OpenEmbedded, for good reason if we remember OE from those days. That reason was originally that OpenedHand didn't want to support all of OE for a customer, only some subset. The OSVs using the Yocto Project still have this issue today. The big difference between combo-layer and the whitelist is that in one case you don't ship the recipe. This makes it really clear to the customer what is and what is not supported. This has pros and cons, obviously. I will state for the record that poky only has complete layers in it though, it doesn't pick components of meta-oe, I've actively avoided it. Putting layers together in one accessible form is a different topic in some ways to filtering one layer into a sublayer. Patrick commented that whitelist and combo-layer both have the same drawback to metadata quality and that is probably true, I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise, merely highlight the other options available and their relative merits (which I didn't do a good job of). Cheers, Richard