[OE-core] Replacing Web in Sato with Midori

[Koen Kooi]

Op 8 aug. 2012, om 14:36 heeft Martin Jansa <martin.jansa at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:

> On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 01:23:08PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 12:01 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>> Op 8 aug. 2012, om 10:41 heeft "Burton, Ross" <ross.burton at intel.com> het volgende geschreven:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> As everyone who's used it can attest, Web (the optional browser in
>>>> Sato) is pretty rough.  Part of my plans about replacing Sato with a
>>>> leaner environment involves replacing it with Midori, and if there
>>>> isn't any disagreements I'll work on a submission to merge Midori into
>>>> Sato now for everyone who expects the Sato web browser to be useful.
>>>> 
>>>> This will involve pulling a few projects from meta-oe to oe-core:
>>>> ca-certificates, python-docutils and vala specifically (although its
>>>> possible that we can drop the vala dependency).
>>> 
>>> Adding more stuff to oe-core is a bad idea. You should take this
>>> opportunity to split all the sato stuff into its own layer.
>> 
>> I feel very strongly that having a core layer with no way of
>> demonstrating and testing it is a very bad idea. I haven't changed my
>> mind about this and am very unlikely to. "How do you know it works?" is
>> the question you ask about package upgrades for example.
> 
> And does it need to be in the same layer?
> 
> Why not test webkit-gtk from oe-core with midori from meta-oe layer? 
> Or meta-browser layer if meta-oe is too big for testing webkit-gtk.

Exactly, you can't make an argument against extra layers with a straight face, since oe-core is all about layers. There are a ton of recipes in oe-core that need extra layers to get properly tested (QT comes to mind), so I don't get why webkit (or by extension sato) should be so different.