On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 05:12:23PM -0600, Randolph Sapp wrote: > On Wed Jan 22, 2025 at 4:51 PM CST, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 02:33:12PM -0600, Randolph Sapp wrote: > > > On Tue Jan 21, 2025 at 1:17 PM CST, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 12:54:39PM -0600, Andrew Davis via > > > > lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > > > > > On 1/21/25 9:16 AM, Ryan Eatmon via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On 1/20/2025 3:13 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > > > > >>On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 01:29:51PM -0600, Randolph Sapp via > > > > > >>lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > > > > > >>>From: Randolph Sapp <[email protected]> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>Remove any explicit dependencies on meta-arago-demos. These were > > > > > >>>the > > > > > >>>last of the "demos" in this layer and they were only being built > > > > > >>>for > > > > > >>>legacy devices. Demos should primarily be in layers above this > > > > > >>>unless > > > > > >>>they are used for functionality testing. > > > > > >> > > > > > >>Why not move those pieces to meta-arago-demos then? > > > > > >> > > > > > >>E.g. move the packagegroups there and add bbappends for the default > > > > > >>image and > > > > > >>world recipes, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > >Basically make meta-arago-demos an island unto itself. If you > > > > > >include it, > > > > > >then you get it, if you don't then no harm. Make sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Will we test with and without this layer? If not then we will end up > > > > > breaking > > > > > things and missing dependencies between layers. > > > > > > > > > > Seems like a lot of maintenence for a layer with just a couple demos. > > > > > Demos > > > > > that should probably all go up into focus SDK layers anyway. > > > > > > > > Should meta-arago-demos be deprecated and removed in its entirety then? > > > > Or > > > > does it only apply to a few select that are still in meta-arago-distro? > > > > > > Yeah, current plan is to drop this layer entirely, just wanted to do it > > > in a > > > sane order. I put a note of that in the tear-off section. Still waiting > > > on these > > > patches to be merged before continuing though. Still got a few more > > > patches for > > > reworking Qt dependencies and enabling Qt6. > > > > I would like to request better commit messages for both of these patches - > > this one and the one Andrew linked for the config change. > > Noted. > > > I do appreciate the difficulty with cross-dependency of thses changes - > > first > > you update meta-arago-distro to not depend on meta-arago-demos, then you > > need > > to remove meta-arago-demos references from the layer setup configs, and > > only > > then you can finally remove meta-arago-demos layer itself, if that's the > > plan. > > Funny thing about that, meta-arago-demos was created without properly > creating a > dependency in the meta-arago-distro to track it.
Ah, yeah, that was my oversight - I take full responsibility fot that. At the time we were cleaning meta-arago-extras and all the demos were extracted from that layer, but I totally missed updating meta-arago-distro: https://git.yoctoproject.org/meta-arago/commit/?id=ff0d17778adbccda2d97b206976b45fe199c970e > > But the first 2 patches do not paint a bigger picture, specifically not > > explaining the actual reason behind these very invasive changes. > > This was discussed in the Webex Yocto channel and 2 other email threads. I > could > have sent out a message on the mailing list but it would have arrived 5 > minutes > before this patch because I was already testing things back in December. > > > I do know about the Qt6 plans and you briefly mention it here later in the > > discussion. But for anyone outside the internal discussions it is not clear > > what is going on and why. Moreover, is the plan to have any Qt6 demos and > > re-use the meta-arago-demos layer? Or is the plan to not have any demos and > > relegate that to downstream SDK layers, if nedded? > > > > Thanks. > > The plan is to not have any demos that are not strictly used for testing in > this > repo. Downstream SDK layers will be reworking their existing demos for Qt6, > picking these up if they are applicable (but nobody seemed to care about these > demos in particular). > > The Qt6 stuff is somewhat new. First week of December was when a decision was > made and an email was sent out shortly after announcing that. I seem to have > incorrectly assumed you guys were in the loop, my bad. I believe there was a slight misunderstanding here. I do have some internal insight, but what I was looking for and asking for here, is to have a commit message that would clearly explain for any outsider what are the high level plans for these changes and why they are being made. A concise version of the above 2 paragraphs w/o referring to any internal communications... :) Both of the patches mostly say "breaking the dependency", which is a bit odd reason for completely removing the entire layer and all the demos. -- Denys -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#15748): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-arago/message/15748 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/110653645/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-arago/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
