On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 12:14 +0100, Burton, Ross wrote: > On 11 July 2013 11:45, Phil Blundell <p...@pbcl.net> wrote: > > I think you could still legitimately question whether having recipes in > > oe-core that are "just for LSB" is sensible and/or desirable, not least > > because dangling libraries that don't have any users are hard to test. > > I was just pondering the idea of a "meta-lsb"...
Yeah, I was thinking about that too. The obvious downside of this plan is that this layer would end up containing a random-looking grab-bag of recipes with nothing in common other than that they're needed for LSB conformance and not in oe-core. In practice that's probably going to mean that the majority of them would duplicate recipes from other layers (e.g. meta-browser in the nss case) which doesn't seem like a very satisfactory state of affairs. p. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
