[OE-core] [PATCH 5/5] bluetooth.bbclass: set bluez5 as the default BT stack

[Iorga, Cristian]

Well,

1. Peter, Otavio: There is not a single doubt about moving to BlueZ 5 as default in 1.9;
2. The requested feedback was about the actual implementation;
3. Peter: " I do think it's a bit abrupt to make it the default in the first stable release that provides a usable bluez5."; The change is intended for 1.9,the release that will come in October 2015. Do you think that it is still abrupt? BlueZ5 is present in YP as an alternative BT stack from 1.7, it will still be a fully supported alternative in the (unreleased) 1.8 (as far as upstream goes as "fully supported", of course), it will the default BT stack in 1.9 (coming October 2015), while BlueZ 4 will still be supported as an obsolete, but still functional alternative; for 2.0 (why 1.10??), if that will be the name, all mechanisms for having BlueZ alternatives will be removed, and BlueZ 5 will be the only official supported BT stack. That's more than two years for a transition, is that too soon??

/Cristian

-----Original Message-----
From: openembedded-core-bounces at lists.openembedded.org [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces at lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of Otavio Salvador
Sent: Monday, April 6, 2015 4:18 PM
To: Peter A. Bigot
Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 5/5] bluetooth.bbclass: set bluez5 as the default BT stack

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Peter A. Bigot <pab at pabigot.com> wrote:
> On 04/06/2015 02:31 AM, Iorga, Cristian wrote:
>
> I thought of 1.9 as the preparatory stage for complete removal of 
> bluez4, so that in 2.0 it would be very easy to remove the support for bluez4.
> Continuing to have bluez5 added to DISTRO_FEATURES create the 
> impression that BlueZ5 is still a second class citizen compared to 
> BlueZ4, and it is not my intention to sustain this opinion via code.
>
> I hereby standup for my solution. At the moment, we are 1to1. “We 
> think” – Who are the others persons, Ross?
>
> /Cristian
>
>
> While I fully support moving to bluez5 and use it in all my images, I 
> do think it's a bit abrupt to make it the default in the first stable 
> release that provides a usable bluez5.  On the other hand, Yocto's 
> late to the
> bluez5 party and it's going to be harder to support bluez4 now.
>
> Six of one; sign me up as weak support for delaying the move to 
> default
> bluez5 until 1.10.
>
> Just an opinion.

I prefer bluez5 default in 1.9 and removal in 2.0 (or 1.10). We shouldn't be support legacy without a very strong reason and if any member shows up to officially support bluez4 for longer we may drop its removal but bluez5 default should be done as soon as possible so we iron out regressions.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core