Re: [PATCH 5/5] bluetooth.bbclass: set bluez5 as the default BT stack

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2939 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 02:32:13PM +0000, Iorga, Cristian wrote:
> for 2.0 (why 1.10??), if that will be the name, all mechanisms for
> having BlueZ alternatives will be removed, and BlueZ 5 will be the
> only official supported BT stack.

why would you remove mechanisms for having BlueZ alternatives?

Some projects are still using different bluetooth implementations and
having the possibility to disable/replace bluez* is still useful.

Cheers,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of Otavio Salvador
> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2015 4:18 PM
> To: Peter A. Bigot
> Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 5/5] bluetooth.bbclass: set bluez5 as the default BT stack
> 
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Peter A. Bigot <pab@pabigot.com> wrote:
> > On 04/06/2015 02:31 AM, Iorga, Cristian wrote:
> >
> > I thought of 1.9 as the preparatory stage for complete removal of 
> > bluez4, so that in 2.0 it would be very easy to remove the support for bluez4.
> > Continuing to have bluez5 added to DISTRO_FEATURES create the 
> > impression that BlueZ5 is still a second class citizen compared to 
> > BlueZ4, and it is not my intention to sustain this opinion via code.
> >
> > I hereby standup for my solution. At the moment, we are 1to1. “We 
> > think” – Who are the others persons, Ross?
> >
> > /Cristian
> >
> >
> > While I fully support moving to bluez5 and use it in all my images, I 
> > do think it's a bit abrupt to make it the default in the first stable 
> > release that provides a usable bluez5.  On the other hand, Yocto's 
> > late to the
> > bluez5 party and it's going to be harder to support bluez4 now.
> >
> > Six of one; sign me up as weak support for delaying the move to 
> > default
> > bluez5 until 1.10.
> >
> > Just an opinion.
> 
> I prefer bluez5 default in 1.9 and removal in 2.0 (or 1.10). We shouldn't be support legacy without a very strong reason and if any member shows up to officially support bluez4 for longer we may drop its removal but bluez5 default should be done as soon as possible so we iron out regressions.
> 
> -- 
> Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
> http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
> Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

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

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]