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 1T2MAQ-0005EU-7H for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:00:46 +0200 Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 Aug 2012 05:48:46 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,784,1336374000"; d="scan'208";a="181944426" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.121.90]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 Aug 2012 05:48:46 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: Martin Jansa Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:48:45 +0100 Message-ID: <5851541.vDHObiJJ2D@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.9 (Linux/3.2.0-29-generic-pae; KDE/4.9.0; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20120817123916.GJ3625@jama.jama.net> References: <3890692.qcbBpDRmfO@helios> <20120817123916.GJ3625@jama.jama.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Remove older GTK+ versions 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, 17 Aug 2012 13:00:46 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Friday 17 August 2012 14:39:16 Martin Jansa wrote: > Should I file a but to fix DEFAULT_PREFERENCE between layers? We've discussed this problem before - the trouble is we would have to change the way the version preference calculation works, and I'm not sure we will be able to do that without breaking assumptions that people currently rely upon in the process. By all means file a bug, but I think coming up with a practical solution is going to be tricky. > Because there is also use case when newer development version is added > to e.g. meta-oe with negative D_P and only users who decide to test/use > that version should get it, if they define P_V for this new version. This is also undesirable for meta-oe IMHO - as a general principle, meta-oe shouldn't be trying to both add additional recipes *and* provide newer/older versions of recipes that are in OE-Core. Please, let's get the new versions into OE-Core or if they're too risky/broken for some use cases for that, then they belong in people's distro layers. (Practically I don't think there are that many instances of new versions of OE-Core recipes that people want to use that would be actually rejected by OE-Core). Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre