[oe] [OE-core] Piglit in Poky

[Andrei Gherzan]

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 04:44:52PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Philip Balister schreef op 28-12-13 23:33:
> > On 12/28/2013 10:28 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> Paul Eggleton schreef op 28-12-13 12:48:
> >>> Hi Koen,
> >>
> >>> On Tuesday 24 December 2013 15:22:32 Koen Kooi wrote:
> >>>> Burton, Ross schreef op 23-12-13 19:01:
> >>>>> We'd like to integrate Piglit (an OpenGL test suite) into Poky
> >>>>> so that we can run automated QA on the GL stack.  Piglit is
> >>>>> currently residing in meta-oe, but as Poky is a self-contained
> >>>>> project we can't just add meta-oe to it:  apart from the size of
> >>>>> meta-oe, we can't ensure stability if meta-oe makes incompatible
> >>>>> changes that affect Poky.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Piglit isn't a stand-alone package, there are the dependencies
> >>>>> of waffle, python-mako and python-numpy to consider too.  There
> >>>>> are two possibilities I can see:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1) Move piglit and deps to oe-core.  Piglit is for QA purposes
> >>>>> only and pushes the boundaries of "core platform".  In a sense
> >>>>> this is a repeat of the discussion we had with Midori...  does
> >>>>> oe-core contain everything needed to sufficiently exercise the
> >>>>> core components it ships or not?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2) Add piglit and deps to meta-yocto.  Probably a new layer
> >>>>> called meta-yocto-qa (or similar) because the Yocto Compatible
> >>>>> guidelines forbid mixing distribution policy and recipes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Speaking of layers, can you *please* rename meta-yocto to
> >>>> meta-poky? It's what it's actually is and would remove a lot of
> >>>> confusion when trying to explain that yocto is not a distro, even
> >>>> if the distro layer is called 'meta-yocto'.
> >>
> >>> This is a tangent, but a couple of points:
> >>
> >>> 1) This rename would not come for free. We'd need to update people's
> >>> existing bblayers.conf files on the fly, as we did when
> >>> meta-yocto-bsp was split out of meta-yocto, and thus bump
> >>> LCONF_VERSION; however, doing this only in poky has resulted in
> >>> annoying problems when users remove poky from their configurations
> >>> (since LCONF_VERSION is out-of-step between Poky and OE-Core, leading
> >>> to confusing errors in this situation). Thus I think we'd want to
> >>> solve this once and for all by bumping the value in OE-Core as well
> >>> as Poky.
> >>
> >>> 2) If you propose this rename, perhaps you will also consider
> >>> renaming meta-oe, since that name within a similarly named
> >>> meta-openembedded repository leads to a similar level of
> >>> confusion...?
> >>
> >> I have no problems with renaming that layer since I get confused by
> >> this a few times a week myself :)
> >
> > What would we we rename it to?
>
> I'm very tempted to suggest 'meta-yocto'
>

I definitely find meta-yocto a better option here. It would save me from
some confusion when talking about yocto to other people.

Related to meta-oe, even if that would be a smaller problem, I think
meta-openembedded is a better name for that layer too.

--
Andrei Gherzan
m: +40.744.478.414 | f: +40.31.816.28.12