From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com [209.85.212.174]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DADED60043 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 09:03:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wijp15 with SMTP id p15so94568310wij.0 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 02:03:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=OKrv0YWb6s4aPLAK/SSW4m9bpGQFLpHTD6kHzNdS+NA=; b=aKJDVyHTWKskgl5bOEFz5RfVEr3v3NrYzewKjQINuQSjYxvoUGoFT1paoqPrbJMOFH oF9OmQfEKYKUHHUnGZxL508C/CHrtbVAbnPQxyYnujMK6HcfhReNSuNbF5sMYbyX086i FnZj7OFcLg1O7AeQmVZGKztYh6pLSCsH0X+hK8Dt9JXsQqrwvsmhLDavteJuOklEQRSu 9PjrDZLseVUtmAE2cM/MQ0wUSzXMag0+khRUFu4+CgMsCyq5zEhleEwRwAP1P5zUJwde R5qoSMGaN0KtR0OYX3VBbofPsWBNshDVaQijiHKjnj4QwKWcxACd+a2MuYM4SliJlf2a TTcw== X-Received: by 10.180.75.243 with SMTP id f19mr42040672wiw.52.1439888606100; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 02:03:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ip-86-49-34-37.net.upcbroadband.cz. [86.49.34.37]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id pe1sm20401067wic.20.2015.08.18.02.03.24 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 18 Aug 2015 02:03:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Jansa X-Google-Original-From: Martin Jansa Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:03:28 +0200 To: Philip Balister Message-ID: <20150818090328.GG2458@jama> References: <55C477AE.8030308@balister.org> <55C4A405.6050209@linux.intel.com> <55C637DB.9010106@balister.org> <55C8956D.9080508@linux.intel.com> <55C8F83F.4010003@balister.org> <55C9F7F2.2060502@linux.intel.com> <55CC588E.6030200@balister.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <55CC588E.6030200@balister.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: OE Core mailing list , Otavio Salvador Subject: Re: meta-gplv2? [Was Re: parted_1.8.6.bb: add parted that not GPLv3] 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: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 09:03:29 -0000 X-Groupsio-MsgNum: 69559 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="64j1qyTOoGvYcHb1" Content-Disposition: inline --64j1qyTOoGvYcHb1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:42:54AM +0200, Philip Balister wrote: > On 08/11/2015 10:46 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Burton, Ross w= rote: > >> > >> On 11 August 2015 at 16:46, Khem Raj wrote: > >>> > >>> can we freeze this thread please. > >> > >> > >> Or more usefully, reboot it. Philip, you're turning into Koen! Alex,= if > >> someone on this list asks what Poky is, 99% of the time they're trolli= ng. > >> :) > >> > >> The original and unanswered question was "should oe-core continue to > >> maintain GPLv2 recipes where upstream has moved to GPLv3 or should tho= se > >> recipes move to a standalone layer" with various implied questions: > >> > >> - If the v2 recipes move to a separate layer, who own/maintains/tests = it? > >> - Should there be v2 recipes for every recipe that has moved to v3, or= only > >> (as is now) the "more-core" recipes (currently YP tests that core-imag= e-base > >> builds without GPLv3, nothing else more complicated) > >> - Should meta-gplv2 only contain recipes from oe-core, or all layers? = If > >> other layers decide to hold both v3 and v2 recipes (not that I'm aware= any > >> have), what makes oe-core special? > >> > >> I'm torn, Richard is torn. Neither of those are useful to forming a > >> decision. Does anyone else have any *useful* feedback? > >=20 > > I think it is a matter of resource usage. > >=20 > > Up to now, the GPLv2 maintenance has not been so hard and thus I would > > say for us to stay as is for now. We should revisit this for every > > release and review if it is time for split it or not. > >=20 >=20 > This would be a good time to remind us who the audience is for the gplv2 > recipes so we understand the amount of manpower behind their maintenance. >=20 > My concern keeping then in core is that the commnunity who uses them > will reduce over time and they will bitrot. If that happens, we should > create a layer for them and remove them from core. It's still better to let them bitrot collectively in central layer than every OE user with this requirement maintaining old GPLv2 recipes in own layers and re-inventing the workarounds needed to build the rest of the system with latest upstream layers. --=20 Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com --64j1qyTOoGvYcHb1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlXS9N8ACgkQN1Ujt2V2gBz3HACfWNvBKeq7TfBOhgLZPc8+WaFG dggAniZ/7hC1W6343vXkGqzHbcFSHcXe =qNZu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --64j1qyTOoGvYcHb1--