[OE-core] GUI based images

[Paul Eggleton]

On Wednesday, 10 May 2017 8:39:58 AM NZST Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> On 05/09/2017 11:19 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
> > I think we should always intend to align the reference stack with
> > whats commonly used in
> > userbases we target to address with project, we will not be serving
> > the project goals and its username if we
> > trim down to packages which are just used for reference, if majority of
> > the community we intend to address uses QT or any other stack for that
> > matter then we should align our requirements accordingly which will be
> > mutually beneficial IMO
> 
> I strongly disagree. Oe-core is not a Greatest Embedded Hits collection 
> or any kind of 'reference stack', and decisions on what goes into it 
> should not be based on how popular it is. 

A number of things have been added to OE-Core because they are widely used, so 
I don't think that's true. However, that doesn't mean that would be used as a 
justification to add Qt5. I'm not even convinced we would need to add Qt5 to 
OE-Core in order to use it as part of a reference UI - the key requirement 
would be for us to commit to being part of its testing and maintenance, 
everything else is just logistics.

> If you do this, you risk overextending the layer, and ending up not doing a
> particularly good job on any of the things it tries to do. It's best to
> allow other layers to  flourish, let the domain specialists do their job and
> decide for themselves how they want to do things, and have a curated list of
> layers that are known to be high quality and approved by Yocto Project.
> 
> If you want qt5, use meta-qt5 and meta-b2qt, both made by people who 
> actually develop the Qt stack itself. End of story.

Your opinion is noted. My opinion is that we ought to be providing a good 
reference that can be used as a basis for real products (regardless of whether 
whatever direction we choose to go is Qt-based or not) - the rest of our stack 
*is* used that way, after all. We regularly get comments about how Sato isn't 
suitable as such a basis, so the expectation is there. I don't think adding 
Wayland support alone will answer that.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre