Re: [oe] Piglit in Poky

[Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>]

On Friday 03 January 2014 13:25:13 Andrei Gherzan wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 04:44:52PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > Philip Balister schreef op 28-12-13 23:33:
> > > On 12/28/2013 10:28 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
> > >> Paul Eggleton schreef op 28-12-13 12:48:
> > >>> Hi Koen,
> > >>> 
> > >>> On Tuesday 24 December 2013 15:22:32 Koen Kooi wrote:
> > >>>> Burton, Ross schreef op 23-12-13 19:01:
> > >>>>> We'd like to integrate Piglit (an OpenGL test suite) into Poky
> > >>>>> so that we can run automated QA on the GL stack.  Piglit is
> > >>>>> currently residing in meta-oe, but as Poky is a self-contained
> > >>>>> project we can't just add meta-oe to it:  apart from the size of
> > >>>>> meta-oe, we can't ensure stability if meta-oe makes incompatible
> > >>>>> changes that affect Poky.
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> Piglit isn't a stand-alone package, there are the dependencies
> > >>>>> of waffle, python-mako and python-numpy to consider too.  There
> > >>>>> are two possibilities I can see:
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> 1) Move piglit and deps to oe-core.  Piglit is for QA purposes
> > >>>>> only and pushes the boundaries of "core platform".  In a sense
> > >>>>> this is a repeat of the discussion we had with Midori...  does
> > >>>>> oe-core contain everything needed to sufficiently exercise the
> > >>>>> core components it ships or not?
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> 2) Add piglit and deps to meta-yocto.  Probably a new layer
> > >>>>> called meta-yocto-qa (or similar) because the Yocto Compatible
> > >>>>> guidelines forbid mixing distribution policy and recipes.
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> Speaking of layers, can you *please* rename meta-yocto to
> > >>>> meta-poky? It's what it's actually is and would remove a lot of
> > >>>> confusion when trying to explain that yocto is not a distro, even
> > >>>> if the distro layer is called 'meta-yocto'.
> > >>> 
> > >>> This is a tangent, but a couple of points:
> > >>> 
> > >>> 1) This rename would not come for free. We'd need to update people's
> > >>> existing bblayers.conf files on the fly, as we did when
> > >>> meta-yocto-bsp was split out of meta-yocto, and thus bump
> > >>> LCONF_VERSION; however, doing this only in poky has resulted in
> > >>> annoying problems when users remove poky from their configurations
> > >>> (since LCONF_VERSION is out-of-step between Poky and OE-Core, leading
> > >>> to confusing errors in this situation). Thus I think we'd want to
> > >>> solve this once and for all by bumping the value in OE-Core as well
> > >>> as Poky.
> > >>> 
> > >>> 2) If you propose this rename, perhaps you will also consider
> > >>> renaming meta-oe, since that name within a similarly named
> > >>> meta-openembedded repository leads to a similar level of
> > >>> confusion...?
> > >> 
> > >> I have no problems with renaming that layer since I get confused by
> > >> this a few times a week myself :)
> > > 
> > > What would we we rename it to?
> > 
> > I'm very tempted to suggest 'meta-yocto'
> 
> I definitely find meta-yocto a better option here. It would save me from
> some confusion when talking about yocto to other people.

I'm not following; meta-yocto is already called meta-yocto ... ? Maybe you 
didn't realise Koen was joking...

> Related to meta-oe, even if that would be a smaller problem, I think
> meta-openembedded is a better name for that layer too.

That doesn't solve the problem I was talking about, namely that there's little 
distinction between meta-openembedded the repository (that contains a number 
of layers) and meta-oe which is one of those layers. These are two different 
things and the similar naming makes it hard to always know which one people 
are talking about.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre