From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80BA260D03; Sat, 28 Dec 2013 11:48:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Dec 2013 03:44:56 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,566,1384329600"; d="scan'208";a="458726844" Received: from acdivito-mobl.gar.corp.intel.com (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.122.61]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Dec 2013 03:48:48 -0800 From: Paul Eggleton To: Koen Kooi Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 11:48:47 +0000 Message-ID: <1801103.RjHpRo2rCi@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.10.5 (Linux/3.8.0-34-generic; KDE/4.10.5; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: poky@yoctoproject.org, openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org, openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: 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: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 11:48:48 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Koen, On Tuesday 24 December 2013 15:22:32 Koen Kooi wrote: > Burton, Ross schreef op 23-12-13 19:01: > > 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? > > > > 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. > > Speaking of layers, can you *please* rename meta-yocto to meta-poky? It's > what it's actually is and would remove a lot of confusion when trying to > explain that yocto is not a distro, even if the distro layer is called > 'meta-yocto'. This is a tangent, but a couple of points: 1) This rename would not come for free. We'd need to update people's existing bblayers.conf files on the fly, as we did when meta-yocto-bsp was split out of meta-yocto, and thus bump LCONF_VERSION; however, doing this only in poky has resulted in annoying problems when users remove poky from their configurations (since LCONF_VERSION is out-of-step between Poky and OE-Core, leading to confusing errors in this situation). Thus I think we'd want to solve this once and for all by bumping the value in OE-Core as well as Poky. 2) If you propose this rename, perhaps you will also consider renaming meta-oe, since that name within a similarly named meta-openembedded repository leads to a similar level of confusion...? Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre