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

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 13:43 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> 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:
> >>>>> +++ 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.

It could be argued that gtk with no way to store settings is a little
useless. I'm in favour of having the core graphics testable so I'm not
100% convinced of your argument above. It certainly goes against the
viewpoint that came out of the TSC meetings so we need further
discussion.

In the meantime, replacing gconf-dbus with gconf would seem to move us
closer to where we want to be overall.

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

Done :)

Cheers,

Richard