<div dir="ltr">Hello folks,<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Martin Jansa <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:martin.jansa@gmail.com" target="_blank">martin.jansa@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 01:27:22PM -0500, Trevor Woerner wrote:<br>
> Hello everyone,<br>
><br>
> question:<br>
> Should some version of Qt be included in openembedded-core, or should<br>
> all recipes to add Qt be part of their own version-specific Qt layer?<br>
><br>
><br>
> background:<br>
> openembedded-core[1] used to include recipes for Qt3, but as Qt3 became<br>
> old these recipes were replaced with Qt4 and the Qt3 support was broken<br>
> out into its own layer[2]. We're now at a point where Qt4 is getting old<br>
> and Qt5 is "current". At some point we'll have to replace the Qt4<br>
> support in [1] with support for Qt5. But we expect users will still want<br>
> to use Qt4, so if the Qt4 support in [1] is replaced by support for Qt5,<br>
> the Qt4 support will need to be broken out into its own layer. Qt5<br>
> support is currently being developed on it's own layer[3].<br>
><br>
><br>
> This email thread is *not* to discuss when we should replace Qt4 with<br>
> Qt5, then question is: should [1] include *any* Qt support, or should Qt<br>
> be always in its own layer to be added as required by the distribution?<br>
><br>
><br>
> If we decide [1] should provide some Qt support, then we can discuss<br>
> when we should replace the Qt4 support with Qt5 in [1]. But for now it<br>
> would be nice to reach a consensus on whether or not [1] should include<br>
> any Qt support at all or if it wouldn't just be easier to always have Qt<br>
> support in its own version-specific layers to be added as required (if<br>
> needed) by the distribution configuration.<br>
<br>
</div>I would like to see qt4 moved from oe-core to meta-qt4.<br>
<br>
That would remove the feeling that using oe-core defaults to using qt4<br>
and it would be consistent with other QT layers:<br>
<br>
meta-qt3<br>
meta-qt4<br>
meta-qt5<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Agreed.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
oe-core would stay just the "core" and if you need any QT you can select<br>
which one suits your needs the most (or combination of e.g. qt4+qt5 like<br>
most people are using now)<br>
<br>
With PACKAGECONFIGs which can list optional dependencies which aren't<br>
included in the the layer itself it's now easier to have recipe with<br>
optional qt5 support in oe-core, but qt5 itself in separate meta-qt5.<br>
<br>
Another interesting aspect is that with qt4 we have only 6 recipes in<br>
openembedded-core/meta/recipes-qt/qt4<br>
<br>
while<br>
meta-qt5/recipes-qt/qt5 has 25 different recipes (many of them with<br>
_<a href="http://git.bb" target="_blank">git.bb</a> variant so 42 in total). And splitting the qt5 recipes (e.g. to<br>
have only qtbase, qtdeclarative in oe-core and "additional" modules in<br>
separate meta-qt5) isn't very good, because they are quite tightly<br>
coupled (so upgrading recipes in meta-qt5 would be in many cases<br>
incomatible with qtbase version in oe-core and vice-versa).<br>
<br>
Another advantage of separate meta-qt5 layer is that in many projects<br>
people are using older oe-core release (e.g. dylan) with newer meta-qt5<br>
(e.g. dora or master or even qt5-5.2.0 branch), with separate layer it's<br>
easier to mix them.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Fully agreed. </div></div><div><br></div>-- <br>Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems<br><a href="http://www.ossystems.com.br" target="_blank">http://www.ossystems.com.br</a> <a href="http://code.ossystems.com.br" target="_blank">http://code.ossystems.com.br</a><br>
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750<br>
</div></div>