qt4 moves out of oe-core - to meta-qt4, or to meta-oe?

qt4 moves out of oe-core - to meta-qt4, or to meta-oe?

[alexander.kanavin]

Hello,

now that 2.0 is out, it's time to move the Qt4 recipes out of oe-core.
This has been discussed previously here:
http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2015-June/106355.html

I'm not sure where the recipes should land, and want to ask your opinion.
The options are:
1) Make a new layer, meta-qt4, under meta-openembedded tree. Move also
everything in meta-oe/recipes-qt (and possibly other spots) to that layer.
This is somewhat more disruptive to people's layer configurations, but
would clearly separate qt4, and slim down meta-oe.

2) Simply move the qt4 recipes from oe-core to meta-oe/recipes-qt, so they
will be next to all the qt4-based software. This is less disruptive, but
adds bloat to meta-oe.

Preferences?

Alex

Re: qt4 moves out of oe-core - to meta-qt4, or to meta-oe?

[Andreas Müller]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 5:45 PM,  <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> now that 2.0 is out, it's time to move the Qt4 recipes out of oe-core.
> This has been discussed previously here:
> http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2015-June/106355.html
>
> I'm not sure where the recipes should land, and want to ask your opinion.
> The options are:
> 1) Make a new layer, meta-qt4, under meta-openembedded tree. Move also
> everything in meta-oe/recipes-qt (and possibly other spots) to that layer.
> This is somewhat more disruptive to people's layer configurations, but
> would clearly separate qt4, and slim down meta-oe.
>
> 2) Simply move the qt4 recipes from oe-core to meta-oe/recipes-qt, so they
> will be next to all the qt4-based software. This is less disruptive, but
> adds bloat to meta-oe.
>
> Preferences?
>
1) or even better in a separate repo

Andreas

Re: qt4 moves out of oe-core - to meta-qt4, or to meta-oe?

[Paul Eggleton]

On Thursday 12 November 2015 18:03:27 Andreas Müller wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 5:45 PM,  <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > now that 2.0 is out, it's time to move the Qt4 recipes out of oe-core.
> > This has been discussed previously here:
> > http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2015-June/106355
> > .html
> > 
> > I'm not sure where the recipes should land, and want to ask your opinion.
> > The options are:
> > 1) Make a new layer, meta-qt4, under meta-openembedded tree. Move also
> > everything in meta-oe/recipes-qt (and possibly other spots) to that layer.
> > This is somewhat more disruptive to people's layer configurations, but
> > would clearly separate qt4, and slim down meta-oe.
> > 
> > 2) Simply move the qt4 recipes from oe-core to meta-oe/recipes-qt, so they
> > will be next to all the qt4-based software. This is less disruptive, but
> > adds bloat to meta-oe.
> > 
> > Preferences?
> 
> 1) or even better in a separate repo

To be honest, I had anticipated this being a separate meta-qt4 repo myself. It 
would be consistent with what has been done with Qt 5 and much earlier with 
Qt 3.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [oe] qt4 moves out of oe-core - to meta-qt4, or to meta-oe?

[Otavio Salvador]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Paul Eggleton
<paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 12 November 2015 18:03:27 Andreas Müller wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 5:45 PM,  <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > now that 2.0 is out, it's time to move the Qt4 recipes out of oe-core.
>> > This has been discussed previously here:
>> > http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2015-June/106355
>> > .html
>> >
>> > I'm not sure where the recipes should land, and want to ask your opinion.
>> > The options are:
>> > 1) Make a new layer, meta-qt4, under meta-openembedded tree. Move also
>> > everything in meta-oe/recipes-qt (and possibly other spots) to that layer.
>> > This is somewhat more disruptive to people's layer configurations, but
>> > would clearly separate qt4, and slim down meta-oe.
>> >
>> > 2) Simply move the qt4 recipes from oe-core to meta-oe/recipes-qt, so they
>> > will be next to all the qt4-based software. This is less disruptive, but
>> > adds bloat to meta-oe.
>> >
>> > Preferences?
>>
>> 1) or even better in a separate repo
>
> To be honest, I had anticipated this being a separate meta-qt4 repo myself. It
> would be consistent with what has been done with Qt 5 and much earlier with
> Qt 3.

Agreed.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

Re: [oe] qt4 moves out of oe-core - to meta-qt4, or to meta-oe?

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1658 bytes --]

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 09:39:15AM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Paul Eggleton
> <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday 12 November 2015 18:03:27 Andreas Müller wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 5:45 PM,  <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > now that 2.0 is out, it's time to move the Qt4 recipes out of oe-core.
> >> > This has been discussed previously here:
> >> > http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2015-June/106355
> >> > .html
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure where the recipes should land, and want to ask your opinion.
> >> > The options are:
> >> > 1) Make a new layer, meta-qt4, under meta-openembedded tree. Move also
> >> > everything in meta-oe/recipes-qt (and possibly other spots) to that layer.
> >> > This is somewhat more disruptive to people's layer configurations, but
> >> > would clearly separate qt4, and slim down meta-oe.
> >> >
> >> > 2) Simply move the qt4 recipes from oe-core to meta-oe/recipes-qt, so they
> >> > will be next to all the qt4-based software. This is less disruptive, but
> >> > adds bloat to meta-oe.
> >> >
> >> > Preferences?
> >>
> >> 1) or even better in a separate repo
> >
> > To be honest, I had anticipated this being a separate meta-qt4 repo myself. It
> > would be consistent with what has been done with Qt 5 and much earlier with
> > Qt 3.
> 
> Agreed.

I'm also fine with separate layer.

Even better for me, I'll be less tempted to include it in my world
builds and to fix qt-mobility-* issues.

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

Re: [oe] qt4 moves out of oe-core - to meta-qt4, or to meta-oe?

[Alexander Kanavin]

On 11/13/2015 01:46 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:

>>>> 1) or even better in a separate repo
>>>
>>> To be honest, I had anticipated this being a separate meta-qt4 repo myself. It
>>> would be consistent with what has been done with Qt 5 and much earlier with
>>> Qt 3.
>>
>> Agreed.
>
> I'm also fine with separate layer.
>
> Even better for me, I'll be less tempted to include it in my world
> builds and to fix qt-mobility-* issues.

Making a separate repository with this layer is even more disruptive, 
and complicates administration and maintenance. I'm not going to handle 
those. So I'll make a meta-qt4 layer under meta-oe, and it's fine if 
there is no official maintainer or ongoing build testing for it at least 
until someone volunteers to pick it up.


Alex

Re: [oe] qt4 moves out of oe-core - to meta-qt4, or to meta-oe?

[Andreas Oberritter]

On 16.11.2015 10:43, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> On 11/13/2015 01:46 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> 
>>>>> 1) or even better in a separate repo
>>>>
>>>> To be honest, I had anticipated this being a separate meta-qt4 repo
>>>> myself. It
>>>> would be consistent with what has been done with Qt 5 and much
>>>> earlier with
>>>> Qt 3.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>
>> I'm also fine with separate layer.
>>
>> Even better for me, I'll be less tempted to include it in my world
>> builds and to fix qt-mobility-* issues.
> 
> Making a separate repository with this layer is even more disruptive,
> and complicates administration and maintenance. I'm not going to handle
> those. So I'll make a meta-qt4 layer under meta-oe, and it's fine if
> there is no official maintainer or ongoing build testing for it at least
> until someone volunteers to pick it up.

Basically everyone agreed on moving qt4 to its own repo. And your
conclusion is to ignore that and move qt4 to meta-openembedded, already
expecting bitrot?

Regards,
Andreas

volunteers for meta-qt4 repo maintenance?

[Alexander Kanavin]

On 11/16/2015 12:07 PM, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
>> Making a separate repository with this layer is even more disruptive,
>> and complicates administration and maintenance. I'm not going to handle
>> those. So I'll make a meta-qt4 layer under meta-oe, and it's fine if
>> there is no official maintainer or ongoing build testing for it at least
>> until someone volunteers to pick it up.
>
> Basically everyone agreed on moving qt4 to its own repo. And your
> conclusion is to ignore that and move qt4 to meta-openembedded, already
> expecting bitrot?

Are you willing to be the maintainer of that separate repo? So far no 
one has stepped up for this job. In this situation, it's better to keep 
the recipes under meta-openembedded tree and mark them as unmaintained.

I'll ask this explicitly - any volunteers for a separate meta-qt4 
repository and layer maintenance?


Alex

Re: volunteers for meta-qt4 repo maintenance?

[Paul Eggleton]

On Monday 16 November 2015 12:26:05 Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 12:07 PM, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> >> Making a separate repository with this layer is even more disruptive,
> >> and complicates administration and maintenance. I'm not going to handle
> >> those. So I'll make a meta-qt4 layer under meta-oe, and it's fine if
> >> there is no official maintainer or ongoing build testing for it at least
> >> until someone volunteers to pick it up.
> > 
> > Basically everyone agreed on moving qt4 to its own repo. And your
> > conclusion is to ignore that and move qt4 to meta-openembedded, already
> > expecting bitrot?
> 
> Are you willing to be the maintainer of that separate repo? So far no
> one has stepped up for this job. In this situation, it's better to keep
> the recipes under meta-openembedded tree and mark them as unmaintained.
>
> I'll ask this explicitly - any volunteers for a separate meta-qt4
> repository and layer maintenance?

Put my name against it if you need a name - no promises on how active I'll be 
though. I will definitely volunteer to do the initial move-out and repo 
creation so you wouldn't need to do anything.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [oe] qt4 moves out of oe-core - to meta-qt4, or to meta-oe?

[Otavio Salvador]

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Alexander Kanavin
<alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 11/13/2015 01:46 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
>
>>>>> 1) or even better in a separate repo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To be honest, I had anticipated this being a separate meta-qt4 repo
>>>> myself. It
>>>> would be consistent with what has been done with Qt 5 and much earlier
>>>> with
>>>> Qt 3.
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>
>>
>> I'm also fine with separate layer.
>>
>> Even better for me, I'll be less tempted to include it in my world
>> builds and to fix qt-mobility-* issues.
>
>
> Making a separate repository with this layer is even more disruptive, and
> complicates administration and maintenance. I'm not going to handle those.
> So I'll make a meta-qt4 layer under meta-oe, and it's fine if there is no
> official maintainer or ongoing build testing for it at least until someone
> volunteers to pick it up.

I will nack the patch to include it onto meta-oe; I also guess that
Martin will also nack it.

Make it another layer as suggested, please.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

Re: [oe] qt4 moves out of oe-core - to meta-qt4, or to meta-oe?

[Alexander Kanavin]

On 11/16/2015 01:20 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:

>> Making a separate repository with this layer is even more disruptive, and
>> complicates administration and maintenance. I'm not going to handle those.
>> So I'll make a meta-qt4 layer under meta-oe, and it's fine if there is no
>> official maintainer or ongoing build testing for it at least until someone
>> volunteers to pick it up.
>
> I will nack the patch to include it onto meta-oe; I also guess that
> Martin will also nack it.
>
> Make it another layer as suggested, please.

A separate layer under meta-openembedded or a separate repository with 
the layer? Please be clear.


Alex

Re: [oe] qt4 moves out of oe-core - to meta-qt4, or to meta-oe?

[Otavio Salvador]

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Alexander Kanavin
<alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 01:20 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>
>>> Making a separate repository with this layer is even more disruptive, and
>>> complicates administration and maintenance. I'm not going to handle
>>> those.
>>> So I'll make a meta-qt4 layer under meta-oe, and it's fine if there is no
>>> official maintainer or ongoing build testing for it at least until
>>> someone
>>> volunteers to pick it up.
>>
>>
>> I will nack the patch to include it onto meta-oe; I also guess that
>> Martin will also nack it.
>>
>> Make it another layer as suggested, please.
>
>
> A separate layer under meta-openembedded or a separate repository with the
> layer? Please be clear.

Another repository.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

Re: [oe] qt4 moves out of oe-core - to meta-qt4, or to meta-oe?

[akuster808]

On 11/16/2015 03:24 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Alexander Kanavin
> <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> On 11/16/2015 01:20 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>
>>>> Making a separate repository with this layer is even more disruptive, and
>>>> complicates administration and maintenance. I'm not going to handle
>>>> those.
>>>> So I'll make a meta-qt4 layer under meta-oe, and it's fine if there is no
>>>> official maintainer or ongoing build testing for it at least until
>>>> someone
>>>> volunteers to pick it up.
>>>
>>>
>>> I will nack the patch to include it onto meta-oe; I also guess that
>>> Martin will also nack it.
>>>
>>> Make it another layer as suggested, please.
>>
>>
>> A separate layer under meta-openembedded or a separate repository with the
>> layer? Please be clear.
> 
> Another repository.

Agree with a separate repo. It clarifies our intention and implies nothing.


> 

Re: [oe] qt4 moves out of oe-core - to meta-qt4, or to meta-oe?

[Mark Hatle]

On 11/16/15 11:10 AM, akuster808 wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/16/2015 03:24 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Alexander Kanavin
>> <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/16/2015 01:20 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Making a separate repository with this layer is even more disruptive, and
>>>>> complicates administration and maintenance. I'm not going to handle
>>>>> those.
>>>>> So I'll make a meta-qt4 layer under meta-oe, and it's fine if there is no
>>>>> official maintainer or ongoing build testing for it at least until
>>>>> someone
>>>>> volunteers to pick it up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I will nack the patch to include it onto meta-oe; I also guess that
>>>> Martin will also nack it.
>>>>
>>>> Make it another layer as suggested, please.
>>>
>>>
>>> A separate layer under meta-openembedded or a separate repository with the
>>> layer? Please be clear.
>>
>> Another repository.
> 
> Agree with a separate repo. It clarifies our intention and implies nothing.

I'm fine with a separate repo as well.  Then whomever still needs it can work
with it as necessary.

--Mark

> 
>>

Re: qt4 moves out of oe-core - to meta-qt4, or to meta-oe?

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2501 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 06:45:34PM +0200, alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> now that 2.0 is out, it's time to move the Qt4 recipes out of oe-core.
> This has been discussed previously here:
> http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2015-June/106355.html
> 
> I'm not sure where the recipes should land, and want to ask your opinion.
> The options are:
> 1) Make a new layer, meta-qt4, under meta-openembedded tree. Move also
> everything in meta-oe/recipes-qt (and possibly other spots) to that layer.
> This is somewhat more disruptive to people's layer configurations, but
> would clearly separate qt4, and slim down meta-oe.
> 
> 2) Simply move the qt4 recipes from oe-core to meta-oe/recipes-qt, so they
> will be next to all the qt4-based software. This is less disruptive, but
> adds bloat to meta-oe.
> 
> Preferences?

1) 

There is already enough meta-oe bloat moved from oe-core:

http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2015-November/112665.html

WARN: qt-mobility-embedded: qt-mobility-embedded rdepends on glib-2.0, but it isn't a build dependency?
WARN: qt-mobility-embedded: qt-mobility-embedded rdepends on gstreamer, but it isn't a build dependency?
WARN: qt-mobility-embedded: qt-mobility-embedded rdepends on libasound, but it isn't a build dependency?
WARN: qt-mobility-embedded: qt-mobility-embedded rdepends on libgstapp-0.10, but it isn't a build dependency?
WARN: qt-mobility-embedded: qt-mobility-embedded rdepends on libgstvideo-0.10, but it isn't a build dependency?
WARN: qt-mobility-x11: qt-mobility-x11 rdepends on glib-2.0, but it isn't a build dependency?
WARN: qt-mobility-x11: qt-mobility-x11 rdepends on gstreamer, but it isn't a build dependency?
WARN: qt-mobility-x11: qt-mobility-x11 rdepends on libasound, but it isn't a build dependency?
WARN: qt-mobility-x11: qt-mobility-x11 rdepends on libgstapp-0.10, but it isn't a build dependency?
WARN: qt-mobility-x11: qt-mobility-x11 rdepends on libgstinterfaces-0.10, but it isn't a build dependency?
WARN: qt-mobility-x11: qt-mobility-x11 rdepends on libgstvideo-0.10, but it isn't a build dependency?
WARN: qt-mobility-x11: qt-mobility-x11 rdepends on libxext, but it isn't a build dependency?
WARN: qt-mobility-x11: qt-mobility-x11 rdepends on libxv, but it isn't a build dependency?

I'm still fixing gst-plugins-good and more gst-plugins-bad issues..

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

Re: qt4 moves out of oe-core - to meta-qt4, or to meta-oe?

[alexander.kanavin]

> There is already enough meta-oe bloat moved from oe-core:
>
> http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2015-November/112665.html
>
> WARN: qt-mobility-embedded: qt-mobility-embedded rdepends on glib-2.0, but
> it isn't a build dependency?

If increasing bloat is a problem, why do recipes in meta-oe need to be
maintained indefinitely? Old cruft can be dropped from meta-oe, just as it
is dropped from oe-core. Just ask the public if it's ok, set a timeframe,
and do it.

qt-mobility in particular has been dead for several years, and doesn't
even have official upstream tarballs anymore. Why spend time fixing it?


Alex

Re: qt4 moves out of oe-core - to meta-qt4, or to meta-oe?

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 899 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:38:58PM +0200, alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > There is already enough meta-oe bloat moved from oe-core:
> >
> > http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2015-November/112665.html
> >
> > WARN: qt-mobility-embedded: qt-mobility-embedded rdepends on glib-2.0, but
> > it isn't a build dependency?
> 
> If increasing bloat is a problem, why do recipes in meta-oe need to be
> maintained indefinitely? Old cruft can be dropped from meta-oe, just as it
> is dropped from oe-core. Just ask the public if it's ok, set a timeframe,
> and do it.
> 
> qt-mobility in particular has been dead for several years, and doesn't
> even have official upstream tarballs anymore. Why spend time fixing it?

That's why there is increasing number of PNBLACKLISTs with each release.

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

Re: [oe] qt4 moves out of oe-core - to meta-qt4, or to meta-oe?

[Burton, Ross]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1239 bytes --]

On 12 November 2015 at 18:59, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > There is already enough meta-oe bloat moved from oe-core:
> > >
> > >
> http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2015-November/112665.html
> > >
> > > WARN: qt-mobility-embedded: qt-mobility-embedded rdepends on glib-2.0,
> but
> > > it isn't a build dependency?
> >
> > If increasing bloat is a problem, why do recipes in meta-oe need to be
> > maintained indefinitely? Old cruft can be dropped from meta-oe, just as
> it
> > is dropped from oe-core. Just ask the public if it's ok, set a timeframe,
> > and do it.
> >
> > qt-mobility in particular has been dead for several years, and doesn't
> > even have official upstream tarballs anymore. Why spend time fixing it?
>
> That's why there is increasing number of PNBLACKLISTs with each release.
>

The recipes were removed from oe-core as they're dead upstream, and
basically as a courtesy moved to meta-oe so anyone still using dead
software can still build it.  If they're just bitrotting and literally
nobody is using the recipes then they should be removed: meta-oe isn't a
historical archive that you're expected to maintain for the next decade.

Ross

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1883 bytes --]