On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 01:44:59PM -0500, Trevor Woerner wrote: > On 01/08/14 10:56, Paul Eggleton wrote: > > However, one concern I have always had with Qt being moved out of > > OE-Core though is that I very much doubt the same will happen with > > GTK+ and GNOME UI components that we carry, which I think will lead to > > the (perhaps erroneous, but logical) assumption in new users' minds > > that we support or recommend these more than we do Qt. Given Qt's > > popularity in the embedded space I don't think this would be the right > > message to be sending out. Any concrete ideas on how we would address > > this perception issue? > > Would it be worthwhile to ask that the OE TSC take on the task of > defining what is "core" and what is not? Does this definition already exist? > > From the moment OE chose to adopt a layered strategy, people started > questioning how to define a layer and what recipes should be part of one > layer versus another. But it doesn't seem as though there's been much > interest in setting any definite rules or definitions in this regard. > Maybe it would be worth the effort to at least try? > > In my opinion... > > Personally I would be in favour of removing GTK+ and the GNOME UI from > the core and putting them in their own layer for all the same reasons I > think Qt should be in its own layer:
The same for meta-x11 or meta-xorg, even when a lot of projects (maybe the most) will just include meta-x* by default. > - a "basic" image doesn't need them > - we can have different layers to track separate major releases (as with > qt3, qt4, and qt5) > > There are so many ways to do GUI "things" on top of a Linux system. > Frankly I'm not even in a position where I could enumerate all of them, > or even sort them out: > - x11, wayland, mir, (directfb) > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_server) > - qt, gtk+, wxwidgets, tcl/tk, fltk > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_widget_toolkits) > - xlib, xcb (client libraries implementing x11 protocol) > - weston, mutter, kwin, clayland (display servers implementing the > wayland display server protocol) > - opengl, opengles, egl, ... > > (I can't even begin to figure out how to draw a diagram that shows how > all these projects fit together!) > > Maybe if there are significant competing projects which do the same > thing, then they should be implemented in their own layer: > - meta-python > - meta-perl > > And if there are completing projects which do the same thing but which > aren't significantly large projects on their own (e.g. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_lightweight_web_servers) then > they should form a layer together of their own: > - meta-apache-httpd > - meta-http-servers > - boa > - cherokee > - lighttpd > - nginx > > Or maybe all projects which do the same thing different ways should be > in their own layer? That way we don't have to distinguish between > "significant" and "lightweight" projects" > - meta-scripting-languages > - python > - perl > - ruby > - meta-http-servers > - apache > - boa > - cherokee > - lighttpd > - nginx > > And maybe "core" should be just enough to get a console-based image working? +1 for whole e-mail. -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: martin.ja...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core