[OE-core] RFC: meta-oe appends and overlayed recipes

[Otavio Salvador]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Paul Eggleton
<paul.eggleton at linux.intel.com> wrote:
...
> Currently we have the following overlayed recipes:
>
> * icon-naming-utils: meta-oe has a newer version (0.8.90 vs OE-Core's 0.8.7)
> and it uses BBCLASSEXTEND rather than OE-Core's native recipe. I would propose
> to just move the meta-oe version to OE-Core since it appears to be superior.

Agreed.

> * libmad: both layers have the same version. The meta-oe version has some
> slightly different versions of the MIPS compiler flag fix and -fforce-mem removal
> patches but I think these can be ignored, since the OE-Core versions of these
> patches have proper headers and are presumably working. The OE-Core version
> has LICENSE_FLAGS that the meta-oe one doesn't, but is missing an avr32-
> specific optimisation patch that is in the meta-oe version. What would we do
> with the latter? Is it appropriate to add to the OE-Core recipe?

Well maybe clean it and keep the avr32 specific optimization?

> * tslib: OE-Core has the 1.0 release version, meta-oe has a git recipe that is
> ahead of 1.0; the OE-Core version has two patches not in the meta-oe version
> but that both have been merged upstream in the git revision being used in the
> meta-oe version. There is no newer stable release. What do we do here? Should
> we ask upstream (Chris) for a new stable release?

It'd be good; in meanwhile we could move meta-oe version to OE-Core.

...
> As far as bbappends go we have:
>
> * meta-oe/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.20.2.bbappend
> As far as I can tell this just adds an /etc/busybox-syslog.default file
> containing OPTIONS="-C64" and seems to have been added for systemd support.
> I'm not sure why this wasn't moved to meta-systemd, but I assume it needs to
> be merged into OE-Core now that systemd support is being added there... ?

Agreed.

> * meta-oe/recipes-extended/polkit/polkit_0.104.bbappend
> Another bbappend apparently for systemd support. Again, this should have been
> moved to meta-systemd; do we now need to merge it into OE-Core?

Agreed.

> * meta-oe/recipes-qt/packagegroups/packagegroup-qte-toolchain-target.bbappend
> This is adding qwt to the qte toolchain. As far as I am concerned this is a
> distro policy decision - Qwt is a third-party library that is not part of Qt.
> I believe this should be moved to the layers for whichever distros want this.

I think people using qte toolchain ought to comment on it.

> * meta-oe/recipes-qt/qt4/qt4-x11-free_4.8.4.bbappend
> * meta-oe/recipes-qt/qt4/qt4-embedded_4.8.4.bbappend
> These two add MySQL and PostgreSQL support to Qt and Qt/Embedded. I see this
> as a distro policy decision; these should move to the layers for whichever
> distros want this. FWIW, this is particularly egregious if you've already
> built Qt, then add meta-oe and find Qt is being unexpectedly rebuilt.

Yes; I think I agree also because *most* people won't use these
backends so better to handle this in the specific
layers/distros/whatever needs it.

> * meta-oe/recipes-multimedia/gstreamer/gst-ffmpeg_0.10.13.bbappend
> Builds against external libav instead of using the builtin copy of ffmpeg,
> apparently for better performance on ARM (and presumably that is not the only
> benefit). It's less clear to me what should be done with this, but I'd still
> rather it could be eliminated. OE-Core does not have ffmpeg/libav; one wonders
> if it should or not.

Dropping it would be a regression IMO so we might try to work in a
solution to OE-Core?

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio at ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br