[oe] meta-openembedded Layers

[akuster808]

On 03/19/2018 03:47 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > 2) I plan removing meta-filesystem and moving recipes to other layers.
>
> I don't have a strong opinion about this, but why meta-filesystems?
It was an easy on to pick on. Mostly because of its size. smbnetfs has a
dependency on samba which is in meta-networking, so it has to move, IMHO

> In previous discussion there were some requests for smaller, better
> manageable layers and this one with 19 recipes and only dependency on
> oe-core and meta-oe doesn't look too bad from that POV.

I don't recall that conversation but thanks for the context. I am just
trying to shake the tree to see what makes sense to change. There are
currently 7 maintainers listed, many in-active.
>
> If you move some recipes from it to meta-oe, then some people might
> complain even more that meta-oe has too many recipes and doesn't serve
> any specific purpose.

Thanks for the questions and feedback.
- armin
>
> Regards,
>
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 10:38 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com
> <mailto:raj.khem at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 2:32 PM, akuster808 <akuster808 at gmail.com
>     <mailto:akuster808 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > Hello all,
>     >
>     > I have been reviewing the meta-openembedded sub-layers and I plan on
>     > taking the following actions:
>     >
>     > Please keep your comments focused on the 3 items below.
>     >
>     >
>     > 1) I plan on resetting the sub-layer maintainers. Several
>     maintainers
>     > listed have been inactive.
>     >
>     > If a currently listed maintainer is interested in continuing, please
>     > send me an email.  I plan on removing in-active maintainers in
>     12 days (
>     > March 30th).
>     >
>
>     This sounds like a good plan.
>
>     >
>     > 2) I plan removing meta-filesystem and moving recipes to other
>     layers.
>     >
>
>     LGTM, this also means some changes in external layers who might
>     depends on this layer explicitly. I hope those layer maintainers will
>     take needed action.
>
>     >
>     > 3)  Meta-gnome, I have heard feed back regarding this layer. Does it
>     > make sense to remove it and push needed recipes out to  other
>     layers?
>     >
>
>     Agreed here again, I have only fixed this layer in past to keep it
>     afloat to
>     reduce compile failures e.g. with clang or musl.
>
>     >
>     > I want to get any restructuring done prior to sumo release to lessen
>     > impact on the Sumo maintainer.
>     >
>     >
>     > regards,
>     >
>     > Armin
>     >
>     >
>     > --
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Openembedded-devel mailing list
>     > Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
>     <mailto:Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org>
>     >
>     http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>     <http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel>
>     --
>     _______________________________________________
>     Openembedded-devel mailing list
>     Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
>     <mailto:Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org>
>     http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>     <http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel>
>
>