Re: [PATCH] giflib: Move to OE-Core

[Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1586 bytes --]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 09:47:43PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Richard Purdie
> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 21:14 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> Op 21 mrt. 2012, om 20:42 heeft Saul Wold het volgende geschreven:
> >>
> >> > On 03/21/2012 07:25 AM, Samuel Stirtzel wrote:
> >> >> * This move will allow the testing of meta-kde for users without meta-openembedded.
> >> >>
> >> > So what other layers are using giflib?
> >> >
> >> > Your suggesting that we need to have it in oe-core so people don't need to add the meta-openembedded layer when using meta-kde?
> >> >
> >> > I am just trying to get more data before making a decision.
> >>
> >> Let's put everything in oe-core!

And then again and again!

> >
> > Let's try and be constructive ;-).
> >
> > I think to make a good decision about this we need to understand which
> > layers use giflib.
> >
> > Is this really the only component from meta-oe that meta-kde needs? If
> > it is, I think the request is certainly worth thinking about as we do
> > want to try and minimise and untangle the dependency spider web if we
> > can.
> >
> 
> I think this library could belong to OE-Core since its a library for GIF images
> its currently used by EFL libs. Putting it in OE-Core would be a better thing
> IMO since it seems common library

FWIW: meta-efl depends on more stuff from meta-oe so moving giflib won't
remove meta-oe dependency from meta-efl.

Cheers,

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]