On 05/09/2017 03:03 PM, Paul Eggleton wrote: > On Wednesday, 10 May 2017 8:39:58 AM NZST Alexander Kanavin wrote: >> On 05/09/2017 11:19 PM, Khem Raj wrote: >>> 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 >> >> I strongly disagree. Oe-core is not a Greatest Embedded Hits collection >> or any kind of 'reference stack', and decisions on what goes into it >> should not be based on how popular it is. > > A number of things have been added to OE-Core because they are widely used, > so > I don't think that's true. However, that doesn't mean that would be used as a > justification to add Qt5. I'm not even convinced we would need to add Qt5 to > OE-Core in order to use it as part of a reference UI - the key requirement > would be for us to commit to being part of its testing and maintenance, > everything else is just logistics. > >> If you do this, you risk overextending the layer, and ending up not doing a >> particularly good job on any of the things it tries to do. It's best to >> allow other layers to flourish, let the domain specialists do their job and >> decide for themselves how they want to do things, and have a curated list of >> layers that are known to be high quality and approved by Yocto Project. >> >> If you want qt5, use meta-qt5 and meta-b2qt, both made by people who >> actually develop the Qt stack itself. End of story. > > Your opinion is noted. My opinion is that we ought to be providing a good > reference that can be used as a basis for real products (regardless of > whether > whatever direction we choose to go is Qt-based or not) - the rest of our > stack > *is* used that way, after all. We regularly get comments about how Sato isn't > suitable as such a basis, so the expectation is there. I don't think adding > Wayland support alone will answer that.
Does anyone currently ship a real product based on sato? Yes, I am aware that sato works for testing gui stuff, just trying to understand if it is used beyond that. Philip > > Cheers, > Paul > -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
