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 1Qw1Da-0007BW-4f for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 02:21:18 +0200 Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 Aug 2011 17:16:31 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,352,1309762800"; d="scan'208";a="41531005" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.14.203]) ([10.255.14.203]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 Aug 2011 17:16:30 -0700 Message-ID: <4E5442DE.7060103@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:16:30 -0700 From: Saul Wold User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110707 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer References: <201108231318.10118.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> <63FF64B9-6C5E-4C87-9DFD-7AD9A88A5DD1@dominion.thruhere.net> <201108231353.13437.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> <6BCD0FB4-907F-4055-A405-F236F6D3D4AA@dominion.thruhere.net> In-Reply-To: <6BCD0FB4-907F-4055-A405-F236F6D3D4AA@dominion.thruhere.net> Cc: Paul Eggleton , Koen Kooi Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] qt4e-demo-image: Fix bug 999 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: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:21:18 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 08/23/2011 08:10 AM, Koen Kooi wrote: > > Op 23 aug. 2011, om 14:53 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven: > >> On Tuesday 23 August 2011 13:27:11 you wrote: >>> I would lean toward a seperate meta-qt layer, not sure if it should be >>> hosted in the oe-core git repo, meta-oe or a completely seperate git repo. >> >> Possibly we should have meta-qt for Qt applications and additional libraries >> such as Qwt (and I'm all for moving our current Qt apps there, they don't >> really belong in OE-core IMHO). If you're suggesting moving out Qt itself >> though, I think Qt belongs in OE-core, certainly as much as GTK+ does. > > I still say that gtk+ should be in it's own layer as well :) I hope to have some time in september to come up with a proposal to rearrange oe-core and meta-oe in a more logical set of layers. Yea, we should discuss this further (post 1.1) for me, while I think it's important to have some demos/test with the oe-core (if we keep it in oe-core), I am not sure we should have all the tests there. I would suggest possibly renaming the current meta-qt3 to meta-qt and including this set of demos there. Comments? Sau! We already have a QT3 layer, maybe it makes sense to make that a generic meta-qt layer and have things reside in it. > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >