On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Burton, Ross <ross.bur...@intel.com> wrote: > > On 8 May 2017 at 23:15, Paul Eggleton <paul.eggle...@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> >> FWIW I think this is a little short-sighted. Why are we ruling out Qt >> exactly? > > > My only strong opinion on what goes into oe-core is that it should be small > (both in size and build time) and basic. It's not going to fit everyones > needs and is basically there to be a UI until the users replace it with > something more suitable. Sato does this without being too huge and there's > not currently a strong impetus to replace it. > > The development of Wayland does make the long-term prospect of Sato > interesting: do we port Sato to Wayland too, or keep the Wayland images > using the standard Weston demo shell?
I think we should always intend to align the reference stack with whats commonly used in userbases we target to address with project, we will not be serving the project goals and its username if we trim down to packages which are just used for reference, if majority of the community we intend to address uses QT or any other stack for that matter then we should align our requirements accordingly which will be mutually beneficial IMO -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
