[oe] [meta-python] Python Flask recipes

[Khem Raj]

> On Feb 19, 2016, at 5:32 AM, Otavio Salvador <otavio.salvador at ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 1:46 AM, Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 10:33 AM, Fabio Berton <fabio.berton at ossystems.com.br> wrote:
>>> I noticed that a few days ago were added some python-flask recipes.
>>> 
>>> I've been maintaining a layer with python-flask recipes, hosted here
>>> http://code.ossystems.com.br/gitweb?p=meta-python-flask.git;a=summary
>>> 
>>> There are recipes in meta-python-flask that were added to meta-python
>>> and I want to simplify maintenance and avoid duplicate recipes.
>>> 
>>> So, do I send recipes from meta-python-flask to meta-python or we move all
>>> python-flask recipes from meta-python to meta-python-flask, using a layer
>>> only for Flask web framework?
>> 
>> Here is a hierarchy one can envision
>> 
>> 1. Core python runtime support - Oe-core
>> 2. python extended modules and infrastructure - meta-python
>> 
>> now if you think this framework is quite commonly used and is kind of core
>> to python world, its fine to have it in meta-python, if you think its
>> too specific then move the common packages to meta-python
>> and maintain it as a separate layer
> 
> Agreed but this is a specific framework which is not 'core' to python.
> Do you think we ought to merge those on meta-python or keep them split
> out?


Just review it and common pieces can move to meta-python, so you can
remove unnecessary recipe copies in multiple layers in future. I don’t
have a strong opinion on the framework itself. It can probably stay in
its own layer if its not so commonly used.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/attachments/20160219/20c71297/attachment-0002.sig>