[OE-core] Piglit in Poky

[Koen Kooi]

-----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'

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iD8DBQFSwEN0MkyGM64RGpERAnuDAKC5kxJXiSjM0RtJPu8Gksu4t7IaOACdFyyq
vPBlgjhnZyECigXVQNUkj1U=
=laEu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----