From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from relay1.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.131]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Puwtg-00014H-2K for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 02:00:04 +0100 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1PuwsF-0007Os-Fn from Tom_Rini@mentor.com for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2011 16:58:35 -0800 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-04.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.41]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 2 Mar 2011 16:58:35 -0800 Received: from [172.30.80.189] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-04.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.270.1; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 16:58:35 -0800 Message-ID: <4D6EE7A6.20603@mentor.com> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 17:58:14 -0700 From: Tom Rini Organization: Mentor Graphics Corporation User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <4D6E7EB1.5080602@windriver.com> <1299088802.26736.10715.camel@rex> <1299093521.26736.10877.camel@rex> In-Reply-To: <1299093521.26736.10877.camel@rex> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Mar 2011 00:58:35.0323 (UTC) FILETIME=[1FB338B0:01CBD93E] Subject: Re: oe-core cleanup... 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, 03 Mar 2011 01:00:04 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 03/02/2011 12:18 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 19:27 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: >> Op 2 mrt 2011, om 19:00 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: >> >>> Thanks for starting this thread Mark, I've also just been looking at >>> this question so its timely. >>> >>> On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 11:30 -0600, Mark Hatle wrote: >>>> I finally got a chance to look at the oe-core and where it currently is.. Some >>>> suggestions below: >>>> >>>> LICENSE file, this may need to be cleaned up to only cover the components >>>> actually in the oe-core. >>>> >>>> README likely needs some revision >>>> >>>> README.hardware needs a lot of revision. Anything outside of support for QEMU >>>> should be removed. >>>> >>>> The meta-demoapps and meta-rt components, will those be staying or going? >>>> >>>> The meta/recipes.txt needs to be verified as still what we want -- I assume it >>>> is at this point.. >>>> >>>> meta/recipes-... sato, qt, gnome, I thought were going elsewhere? >>>> >>>> Do the items in the "scripts" need to be renamed or is Poky being kept in the >>>> naming? Same with the poky-init-build-env? >>>> >>>> Then I also assume the items in the documentation directory need to be cleaned >>>> up as well... >>>> >>>> Let me know what you'd like me to try and tackle -- or if we need to bring these >>>> items up at the TSC for recommendation. >>> >>> I'm proposing this change so far: >>> >>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=rpurdie/roorg&id=891ad22536b49d4fee066a5865ad730f791d36e9 >>> >>> with those relocated files being removed from oe-core. Any objections to >>> that to start with? >> >> Why not put the recipes in meta-oe? I have need for e.g eds-dbus and would like to have that in meta-oe. > > Which pieces are we talking about? Does oe-core want sato? Should some > of these go to meta-gnome and is that what we want? Or do we want all of > sato there? > > I was under the impression sato might not be wanted but I'm open to > influence either way on that. Certainly there are some pieces "we" as in > Yocto put into recipe-sato that could arguably be positioned elsewhere. > > Are you also concerned about meta-demoapps or is that fine? To me, sato should be however poky wants to deal with it. But a lot of the deps are common gnome things and so forth that others care about too and we should try for meta-oe. Again, to me, this is how we can reconcile the bits that poky has better than oe.dev (and vice versa) so both parties win. -- Tom Rini Mentor Graphics Corporation