From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QfCuF-0001LX-FL for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2011 17:23:51 +0200 Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Jul 2011 08:19:57 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,499,1304319600"; d="scan'208";a="23176147" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.13.187]) ([10.255.13.187]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Jul 2011 08:19:57 -0700 Message-ID: <4E17201D.6040205@linux.intel.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:19:57 -0700 From: Darren Hart User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer References: <1309881139.2410.14.camel@phil-desktop> <201107051731.12273.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> <1309891044.3176.7.camel@lenovo.internal.reciva.com> <201107061506.04010.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> <4E14F23C.5050001@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <4E14F23C.5050001@linux.intel.com> Cc: Paul Eggleton Subject: Re: [PATCH] bluez-dtl1-workaround: remove PRIORITY 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: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 15:23:51 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 07/06/2011 04:39 PM, Saul Wold wrote: > On 07/06/2011 07:06 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote: >> On Tuesday 05 July 2011 19:37:24 you wrote: >>> On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 17:31 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: >>>> Is it possible some people are still using PCMCIA/CF cards with this >>>> hardware in it? >>> >>> It's certainly possible, yes. But I don't think that the mere >>> possibility is a very strong argument for keeping the recipe in oe-core. >>> Maybe it would be better suited to meta-oe or some BSP layer, >> >> You're right, I guess it doesn't really belong in oe-core. >> > Phil, > > I will take a patch that deletes from here and adds it into the > meta-extra's layer. In some cases this is simple enough to do - move one recipe from here to there. In other cases, not so much. Note that in addition to the removal of these recipes, Phil also kindly cleaned up kernel.bbclass by removing a bunch of special casing that was in place for this specific module. Adding that support to meta-extras is a considerable effort and not particularly sustainable as more old-and-crusty code is purged from OE. It is also not likely to be well tested, which makes meta-extra less and less useful. We need an exit-path for old-and-crusty code - the git repository has the history, so if it's needed we can always pull it into meta-extras and properly test it when we know there is an interest, but if some due diligence has been performed to determine the code is no longer of any use, it seems like a lot of effort for very little gain to move any and all removal of code from oe-core to meta-extras. Thanks, Darren > > Sau! > >> Cheers, >> Paul >> > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel