[OE-core] [PATCH 2/6] bitbake.conf: Include the new default-providers.inc and default-versions.inc files

[Koen Kooi]

Op 11 mei 2011, om 13:24 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:

> On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 12:08 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Op 11 mei 2011, om 11:09 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 16:20 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>> Op 10 mei 2011, om 16:00 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
>>>> 
>>>>> From: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org>
>>>>> 
>>>>> These are the minimal defaults to allow OE-Core to function standalone with
>>>>> no distro set and are constucted such that the distro can either override values,
>>>>> or totally replace the include file entirely as needed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> meta/conf/bitbake.conf                            |    3 +
>>>>> meta/conf/distro/include/default-providers.inc    |   34 ++++++++++++
>>>>> meta/conf/distro/include/default-versions.inc     |   18 ++++++
>>>>> meta/conf/distro/include/poky-fixed-revisions.inc |   27 ---------
>>>>> meta/conf/distro/poky.conf                        |   59 +--------------------
>>>>> 5 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 85 deletions(-)
>>>>> create mode 100644 meta/conf/distro/include/default-providers.inc
>>>>> create mode 100644 meta/conf/distro/include/default-versions.inc
>>>>> delete mode 100644 meta/conf/distro/include/poky-fixed-revisions.inc
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/default-providers.inc b/meta/conf/distro/include/default-providers.inc
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 0000000..d51ac64
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/default-providers.inc
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
>>>>> 
>>>>> +PREFERRED_PROVIDER_gconf ?= "gconf-dbus"
>>>> 
>>>> the dbus port has long been merged upstream, so proper gconf would be
>>>> a better choice. We could ignore it and just use dconf in meta-gnome,
>>>> though ;)
>>> 
>>> I agree we should be using gconf, could someone send me the recipe
>>> though? ;-).
>> 
>> I think we want to keep gconf in meta-gnome and pull the dependants out of oe-core
> 
> We have a slight dependency conflict here as we've said we want sato in
> OECore so we have something we can actually test.
> 
> Are we now saying sato also needs to be separated out into its own
> layer?

I think that's the best way forward.

> Or can we define meta-gnome as being the gnome pieces without direct
> requirements in OECore for a minimal gtk desktop?

If it's using gconf, it's not a minimal gtk desktop anymore. I see the point in having something like sato in oe-core, but I don't think that's worth having gconf(-dbus) in oe-core. But this is a different discussion, since there are other things that can use gconf (e.g. gstreamer) in oe-core, which we would need to take a look at.

Let's get your distro set merged and then improve on it.

regards,

Koen