On 10/13/2015 12:01 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 08:53:21AM +0000, Hausmann Simon wrote: >> I think code that isn't specific to the automotive industry such as as >> the dbus integration should be integrated into existing modules unless >> there is a good reason otherwise. >> > i said the same. ^^ > it turns out that there are, ehm, "external constraints" regarding > binary packaging which suggest separation at the repo level. > > but it occurred to me that this isn't unique to these modules: see the > current lgpl 2.1 vs. 3 situation within the qtlocation module. we're > going to handle that by splitting the repo at build time. while this > isn't strictly beautiful, it seems like a rather reasonable approach to > this specific problem. i suggest the proposal to be reconsidered with > this possibility in mind. > > Viironen Kalle wrote: >> * qt/qtivi, Qt IVI extensible platform abstraction layer >> * qt/qtgeniviextras, Qt extras for GENIVI services >> > i'm still not clear why these should be separate repositories. > intuitively, genivi extras seems to be a subset of ivi. this doesn't > imply that they are the same module (library), but grouping modules by > topic at the repository level is often a reasonable thing.
Yes genivi is a subset of IVI. As the qtgeniviextras repository currently only contains the QtGeniviExtras modules we could move the module into the qtivi repository, that's ok for me. > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development > -- Dominik Holland SENIOR SOFTWARE ENGINEER Pelagicore AG Balanstr. 55, 81541 Munich, Germany +49 (0)171 760 25 96 [email protected] www.pelagicore.com _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
