[oe] Splitting meta-oe?

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 09:02:53AM -0500, Joe MacDonald wrote:
> [Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?] On 18.02.21 (Wed 11:22) Martin Jansa wrote:
> 
> > There is good example of inter-layer dependencies from real world:
> > http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2017-February/111447.html
> > 
> > Do you want
> > A) new git repository meta-libio-socket-ssl-perl so that meta-networking
> > will depend on this on instead of whole meta-perl
> > B) meta-ddclient which will probably depend on both meta-perl and
> > meta-networking
> > C) ddclient and its dependencies in meta-perl
> > D) libio-socket-ssl-perl moved to oe-core, so that next time we can say
> > that oe-core is just like old oe-classic just with a bit less stuff in it
> > 
> > Neither of these options is ideal, but meta-networking getting meta-perl
> > dependency is the one which causes fewest issues to OE users.
> 
> Yeah, I've been thinking about this and trying to decide what is the
> "right" thing to do here.  Because I already have added layer
> dependencies in meta-networking that I didn't originally envision, so
> what's one more that is, as you say, almost certainly in the majority of
> consumers' projects anyway?  But it does force a new layer dependency on
> consumers of the meta-networking layer who may not care about ddclient,
> and I'd like to avoid that if possible.
> 
> Honestly, now that I'm back from my vacation, I think the right thing is
> to add the dependency and then start thinking about a way to specify
> layer dependencies with greater granularity than on a meta-layer basis.
> Like, there's no question meta-networking depends on core.  It's
> nonsense to think of it without that dependency.  But it'd be nice to be
> able to specify a layer dependency that only exists if your project
> includes specific recipes out of that layer.
> 
> But that kind of mechanism seems highly prone to breakage and likely to
> be highly contentious even if it was shown to be reliable, so it may not
> get beyond a "that'd be nice" thing for me.
> 
> Unless someone else has already implemented it and I'm just not aware of
> how to use it?  :-)

One thing I've been thinking about is that some layers need more
sub-layers.  Taking a very tiny peek into meta-networking, perhaps
re-organize into meta-networking-core, meta-networking-iscsi,
meta-networking-vpn, etc.  Or maybe that won't help with dependencies.
But the need for layer X for a single recipe can sometimes I think be
solved by re-thinking the layer.

All that said, it might be better instead to add something like
RECIPE_LAYERDEPENDS so that for the one-or-two offs, the recipe will
fail to build (and implement that similar to the logic in
image-container.bbclass? so that you only get a failure on building that
recipe rather than anything in the layer) ?

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/attachments/20180221/1e1c5e2e/attachment-0002.sig>