Op 11 mei 2011, om 13:24 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: > On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 12:08 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: >> Op 11 mei 2011, om 11:09 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: >> >>> On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 16:20 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: >>>> Op 10 mei 2011, om 16:00 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: >>>> >>>>> From: Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> >>>>> >>>>> These are the minimal defaults to allow OE-Core to function standalone >>>>> with >>>>> no distro set and are constucted such that the distro can either override >>>>> values, >>>>> or totally replace the include file entirely as needed. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> >>>>> --- >>>>> meta/conf/bitbake.conf | 3 + >>>>> meta/conf/distro/include/default-providers.inc | 34 ++++++++++++ >>>>> meta/conf/distro/include/default-versions.inc | 18 ++++++ >>>>> meta/conf/distro/include/poky-fixed-revisions.inc | 27 --------- >>>>> meta/conf/distro/poky.conf | 59 >>>>> +-------------------- >>>>> 5 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 85 deletions(-) >>>>> create mode 100644 meta/conf/distro/include/default-providers.inc >>>>> create mode 100644 meta/conf/distro/include/default-versions.inc >>>>> delete mode 100644 meta/conf/distro/include/poky-fixed-revisions.inc >>>>> >>>> >>>>> diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/default-providers.inc >>>>> b/meta/conf/distro/include/default-providers.inc >>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>> index 0000000..d51ac64 >>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>> +++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/default-providers.inc >>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ >>>>> >>>>> +PREFERRED_PROVIDER_gconf ?= "gconf-dbus" >>>> >>>> the dbus port has long been merged upstream, so proper gconf would be >>>> a better choice. We could ignore it and just use dconf in meta-gnome, >>>> though ;) >>> >>> I agree we should be using gconf, could someone send me the recipe >>> though? ;-). >> >> I think we want to keep gconf in meta-gnome and pull the dependants out of >> oe-core > > We have a slight dependency conflict here as we've said we want sato in > OECore so we have something we can actually test. > > Are we now saying sato also needs to be separated out into its own > layer?
I think that's the best way forward. > Or can we define meta-gnome as being the gnome pieces without direct > requirements in OECore for a minimal gtk desktop? If it's using gconf, it's not a minimal gtk desktop anymore. I see the point in having something like sato in oe-core, but I don't think that's worth having gconf(-dbus) in oe-core. But this is a different discussion, since there are other things that can use gconf (e.g. gstreamer) in oe-core, which we would need to take a look at. Let's get your distro set merged and then improve on it. regards, Koen _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core