From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78F1E6CEE4 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 16:29:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ee0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b57so800214eek.3 for ; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 08:29:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=NFL52oPk49FaJv+lFEJUQZdfiyfvO7Hwzhrik+DA3Zc=; b=r0FlAPXRVOyPY8q4Vbf7rSrry85KVATED+j8AZT5sI9SPZ7n+HI30Nj/MOKACB+RYf Nd3Qe8rWjWlAeX5NxMUBvBwPFjrz9WEcKUvHNXwtlCoWZl0MRy/2MinVCjULbm5qnCeX KnVaLlB7D8mrt3pQuESr8tSxrmr+Yx933yEjVbPzK80hTVQ4H1UOND0NLOlty9HqW0Br E0AzqGdJTDzN7dI88UVQPDkqd6C7KoYvXTTU2UBeoSthRRSDIj1D3Zqdmna+b4hWyJr2 g8pI3BoREZnnO1hkgFSg8XA8HRiLvmm83rYx9vIt8Yaufgju2hUgJ12Yx0KbVE6f+Dfy Hvlg== X-Received: by 10.14.115.133 with SMTP id e5mr26848103eeh.91.1389198556956; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 08:29:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (ip-89-176-104-107.net.upcbroadband.cz. [89.176.104.107]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id o13sm9775596eex.19.2014.01.08.08.29.15 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Jan 2014 08:29:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 17:29:26 +0100 From: Martin Jansa To: Paul Eggleton Message-ID: <20140108162926.GA3709@jama> References: <52CC470A.9030302@linaro.org> <1759035.6JVm74GdRW@helios> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1759035.6JVm74GdRW@helios> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: Qt in OE-core 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: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 16:29:17 -0000 X-Groupsio-MsgNum: 48716 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="k/A+UfywgnnvevLW" Content-Disposition: inline --k/A+UfywgnnvevLW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 03:56:04PM +0000, Paul Eggleton wrote: > Hi all, >=20 > On Tuesday 07 January 2014 13:27:22 Trevor Woerner wrote: > > question: > > Should some version of Qt be included in openembedded-core, or should > > all recipes to add Qt be part of their own version-specific Qt layer? > >=20 > > background: > > openembedded-core[1] used to include recipes for Qt3, but as Qt3 became > > old these recipes were replaced with Qt4 and the Qt3 support was broken > > out into its own layer[2]. We're now at a point where Qt4 is getting old > > and Qt5 is "current". At some point we'll have to replace the Qt4 > > support in [1] with support for Qt5. But we expect users will still want > > to use Qt4, so if the Qt4 support in [1] is replaced by support for Qt5, > > the Qt4 support will need to be broken out into its own layer. Qt5 > > support is currently being developed on it's own layer[3]. > >=20 > > This email thread is *not* to discuss when we should replace Qt4 with > > Qt5, then question is: should [1] include *any* Qt support, or should Qt > > be always in its own layer to be added as required by the distribution? > >=20 > > If we decide [1] should provide some Qt support, then we can discuss > > when we should replace the Qt4 support with Qt5 in [1]. But for now it > > would be nice to reach a consensus on whether or not [1] should include > > any Qt support at all or if it wouldn't just be easier to always have Qt > > support in its own version-specific layers to be added as required (if > > needed) by the distribution configuration. >=20 > I can see some benefits to having Qt in a separate layer, and this is not= the=20 > first time this question has come up. However, one concern I have always = had=20 > with Qt being moved out of OE-Core though is that I very much doubt the s= ame=20 > will happen with GTK+ and GNOME UI components that we carry, which I thin= k=20 > will lead to the (perhaps erroneous, but logical) assumption in new users= '=20 > minds that we support or recommend these more than we do Qt. Given Qt's= =20 > popularity in the embedded space I don't think this would be the right me= ssage=20 > to be sending out. >=20 > Any concrete ideas on how we would address this perception issue? Link to layerindex in meta/recipes-qt/qt5 directory? :) --=20 Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com --k/A+UfywgnnvevLW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlLNfOYACgkQN1Ujt2V2gBzoZwCgjS4+Na2oymDXk2ReKSAMBtK2 XB8Anion5goAdcvJ9Ux0NwPsf2luX1NK =Gfeq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --k/A+UfywgnnvevLW--