[OE-core] oe-core cleanup...

[Koen Kooi]

Op 3 mrt 2011, om 01:58 heeft Tom Rini het volgende geschreven:

> On 03/02/2011 12:18 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 19:27 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>> Op 2 mrt 2011, om 19:00 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
>>> 
>>>> Thanks for starting this thread Mark, I've also just been looking at
>>>> this question so its timely.
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 11:30 -0600, Mark Hatle wrote:
>>>>> I finally got a chance to look at the oe-core and where it currently is..  Some
>>>>> suggestions below:
>>>>> 
>>>>> LICENSE file, this may need to be cleaned up to only cover the components
>>>>> actually in the oe-core.
>>>>> 
>>>>> README likely needs some revision
>>>>> 
>>>>> README.hardware needs a lot of revision.  Anything outside of support for QEMU
>>>>> should be removed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The meta-demoapps and meta-rt components, will those be staying or going?
>>>>> 
>>>>> The meta/recipes.txt needs to be verified as still what we want -- I assume it
>>>>> is at this point..
>>>>> 
>>>>> meta/recipes-...  sato, qt, gnome, I thought were going elsewhere?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Do the items in the "scripts" need to be renamed or is Poky being kept in the
>>>>> naming?  Same with the poky-init-build-env?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Then I also assume the items in the documentation directory need to be cleaned
>>>>> up as well...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Let me know what you'd like me to try and tackle -- or if we need to bring these
>>>>> items up at the TSC for recommendation.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm proposing this change so far:
>>>> 
>>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=rpurdie/roorg&id=891ad22536b49d4fee066a5865ad730f791d36e9
>>>> 
>>>> with those relocated files being removed from oe-core. Any objections to
>>>> that to start with?
>>> 
>>> Why not put the recipes in meta-oe? I have need for e.g eds-dbus and would like to have that in meta-oe.
>> 
>> Which pieces are we talking about? Does oe-core want sato? Should some
>> of these go to meta-gnome and is that what we want? Or do we want all of
>> sato there?
>> 
>> I was under the impression sato might not be wanted but I'm open to
>> influence either way on that. Certainly there are some pieces "we" as in
>> Yocto put into recipe-sato that could arguably be positioned elsewhere.
>> 
>> Are you also concerned about meta-demoapps or is that fine?
> 
> To me, sato should be however poky wants to deal with it.  But a lot of the deps are common gnome things and so forth that others care about too and we should try for meta-oe.  Again, to me, this is how we can reconcile the bits that poky has better than oe.dev (and vice versa) so both parties win.

I added sato to OE years ago, but didn't update it, so I argue since it's already in OE we should put it in meta-oe :)

regards,

Koen