From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-fx0-f47.google.com ([209.85.161.47]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R1Z4n-0003Cg-F6 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 09:31:09 +0200 Received: by fxg11 with SMTP id 11so1321701fxg.6 for ; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 00:26:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=NJou8TK4T7e5wi413SUB0E+R+VqiqkKS4/cAnyx3q9g=; b=MWcDKXeTODeg9aSLAMTKhEeOvds9qPGeLHu21sR2EgJHfBYJpBjNcCIIKobNZ+eeoM klhMJRSqqKqwHaJ+MofGIhq7q3aCzy3qir/HW0IwbdDiZAikBT4/C07y8HlZhYQE0IcL MSC7k50ShXOGfjyv0C64IFsw4GHwPEjCjZMGQ= Received: by 10.223.42.6 with SMTP id q6mr615427fae.140.1315466766450; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 00:26:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([94.230.152.246]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k28sm947145faf.21.2011.09.08.00.26.04 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 08 Sep 2011 00:26:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 09:25:58 +0200 From: Martin Jansa To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Message-ID: <20110908072558.GA14074@jama.jama.net> References: <79EAF6DF-304E-43B7-B97B-1FA6FFEBB91C@beagleboard.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <79EAF6DF-304E-43B7-B97B-1FA6FFEBB91C@beagleboard.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [RFC] Layer rework proposal X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 07:31:09 -0000 X-Groupsio-MsgNum: 9258 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="yrj/dFKFPuw6o+aM" Content-Disposition: inline --yrj/dFKFPuw6o+aM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 01:01:44PM +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > Hi, >=20 > This has come up in the past, but no one has had time to site down and wr= ite a proposal yet. >=20 > Problem description: The OE-core layer has both too much in it and not en= ough. >=20 > Currently OE-core is basically a relabeling of the poky fork of OE. Due t= o that heritage is has bits in it that aren't considered 'core', but serve = as a testbed for the proper core metadata. The prime example of this is the= sato suite. To address this we will need to come up with guidelines what g= oes into OE-core and what people expect to get out of it. Here's a start: >=20 > Highlevel goals: >=20 > 1) Have a high quality set of "core" metadata > 2) OE-core needs to be useful on its own > 3) OE-core needs to be testable on its own >=20 > Concrete rootfs goals: >=20 > a) be able to build for the 4 blessed architectures: arm, mips, powerpc,= x86 > b) have multilib support > c) be able to build a rootfs that has: > o package management (rpm/deb/opkg) > o networking support (ifupdown/connman/dnsmasq) > o have remote access (dropbear/openssh) > o have user management (shadow/pam) >=20 > I think it's safe to say that we all agree on that minimum set of goals. = The tricky thing is where to put multimedia and GUI stuff. Qt and GTK are = important enough to get put in core, but where do we draw the line? Where d= o we stop splitting things in recipes-* and start splitting them into layer= s and should those layers live in seperate repositories? >=20 > My list of non-BSP, non-distro layers is: >=20 > BBLAYERS =3D " \ > ${TOPDIR}/sources/meta-openembedded/meta-oe \ > ${TOPDIR}/sources/meta-openembedded/meta-efl \ > ${TOPDIR}/sources/meta-openembedded/meta-gpe \ > ${TOPDIR}/sources/meta-openembedded/meta-gnome \ > ${TOPDIR}/sources/meta-openembedded/meta-xfce \ > ${TOPDIR}/sources/openembedded-core/meta \ > " >=20 > The gpe, gnome and xfce layers need things like glib-2.0 and gtk, but the= re's a larger overlay between the 3, so gpe and xfce end up depending on th= e gnome layer. Meta-oe is the place where people put things they don't want= to maintain in a seperate layer, which isn't going to scale longterm. >=20 > My not-so-fully-formed idea is: >=20 > core - implements above goals > x11 - base xorg libs, headers, apps. Has bbappends for core recipes to ad= d x11 support via DISTRO_FEATURES > gtk - base gtk things, libs, themes, icons, modules > qt - base qt things + qwt >=20 > efl - depends on core,x11 > gnome - depends on core,x11,gtk > gpe - depends on core,x11,gtk > opie - depends on core,qt > sato - depends on core,x11,gtk > xfce - depends on core,x11,gtk, gnome >=20 > and finally: >=20 > oe - leftovers >=20 > With this layer structure as starting point can we start a discussion on = how people would like to set it split? I'd like to leave the question of wh= ich layer goes into what repository for later. I like this proposal. The point of being able to test oe-core also with graphics (sato) is right, but to test that oe-core is usable in oe-core/x11/gtk/sato layer stack is IMHO even more important as many people are using oe-core just as one of the layers. I've started to merge and upgrade x11 recipes from meta-oe to oe-core=20 (to be able to create x11 layer from it, if we decide so). http://git.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded-core-contrib/log/?h=3Djan= sa/x11 http://git.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/meta-openembedded-contrib/log/?h=3Djan= sa/x11 http://git.shr-project.org/git/?p=3Dmeta-smartphone.git;a=3Dshortlog;h=3Dre= fs/heads/x11 Regards, --=20 Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com --yrj/dFKFPuw6o+aM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk5obgYACgkQN1Ujt2V2gBwsPwCcCxb6PJ3HZGims4yeEYbxyaEs SDAAoLpW0FaFfbZGR0PzQyrfK60bO0Rh =RsK5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --yrj/dFKFPuw6o+aM--