Re: meta-gplv2? [Was Re: parted_1.8.6.bb: add parted that not GPLv3]

[Philip Balister <philip@balister.org>]

On 08/10/2015 02:13 PM, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> On 08/08/2015 08:09 PM, Philip Balister wrote:
>>> By 'self-sustaining' I mean 'being able to continuously produce quality
>>> work'. Looking at layers in meta-openembedded, not all of them are of
>>> high quality. Meta-gnome in particular is badly out of date, because no
>>> one wants to maintain it properly. If oe-core starts taking a lot more
>>> volunteer contributions, and the same thing happens (a volunteer
>>> contributes a large set of recipes, then disappears), what is supposed
>>> to happen then?
>>
>> You are missing the point. We now use layers to segregate sets of
>> recipes o stuff that is not interesting to many people and becomes
>> obsolete may decline without compromising heavily used layers. This is
>> all part of the evolution of OpenEmbedded over many, many years.
>>
>> If people lose interest in meta-gplv2, then so be it.
> 
> This is perfectly fine with me. However, the subject has been whether
> the scope of *oe-core/poky* can be expanded without compromising

What is Poky?

Philip

> quality. I'm not sure at which point it got confused with general OE, so
> I can only refer you back to several emails up this thread:
> 
> http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2015-July/108037.html
> 
> http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2015-July/108167.html
> 
> http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2015-July/108208.html
> 
> 
> 
> Alex
>