<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 28 February 2017 at 02:09, akuster808 <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:akuster808@gmail.com" target="_blank">akuster808@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><blockquote type="cite"><div class="m_6518131125971471240WordSection1"><p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span><span>o<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">rpm
v4/dnf to replace rpm v5/smart?</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote></span>
IMHO, we should include dnf in 2.3 so folks can start playing with
it and remove smart in 2.4.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Not possible: dnf requires rpm4. In the current work there is no attempt at letting the user pick rpm4 or rpm5.</div><div><br></div><div>Personally I think we should leave this for 2.4M1. It's a major change and needs many eyes.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><blockquote type="cite"><div class="m_6518131125971471240WordSection1"><p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span><span>o<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Separate
out elderly GPLv2 into a separate layer?</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote></span>
yes, but maybe not for 2.3 if its a large effort.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I suspect for 2.3 this would be a matter of moving a few recipes into another layer, which for testing purposes the autobuilder always includes. So that should just be a matter of move recipes, layer version bump, update autobuilder to conditionally fetch the layer.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><blockquote type="cite"><div class="m_6518131125971471240WordSection1"><p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span><span>o<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Graphics
stack vulkan changes?</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote></span>
The "Go" changes hit before the vulkan. Both should have the same
rules applied which ever way the decision goes.</blockquote></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div>They should be considered independently.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Vulkan current requires a development snapshot of Mesa, needs tweaking of PACKAGECONFIG, and the only supported BSP doesn't work out of the box. Seeing it work is a great step forward but there's many open questions and whilst I'd love to put "Vulkan support" on the 2.3 release notes I'm not yet convinced we're ready. I guess it comes down to how long it takes the current queue to stabilise: the current fire is over the testing of minimal eSDKs.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Ross</div></div>