meta-openembedded Layers

meta-openembedded Layers

[akuster808]

Hello all,

I have been reviewing the meta-openembedded sub-layers and I plan on
taking the following actions:

Please keep your comments focused on the 3 items below.


1) I plan on resetting the sub-layer maintainers. Several maintainers
listed have been inactive. 

If a currently listed maintainer is interested in continuing, please
send me an email.  I plan on removing in-active maintainers in 12 days (
March 30th).


2) I plan removing meta-filesystem and moving recipes to other layers.


3)  Meta-gnome, I have heard feed back regarding this layer. Does it
make sense to remove it and push needed recipes out to  other layers?   


I want to get any restructuring done prior to sumo release to lessen
impact on the Sumo maintainer.


regards,

Armin

Re: meta-openembedded Layers

[Khem Raj]

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 2:32 PM, akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have been reviewing the meta-openembedded sub-layers and I plan on
> taking the following actions:
>
> Please keep your comments focused on the 3 items below.
>
>
> 1) I plan on resetting the sub-layer maintainers. Several maintainers
> listed have been inactive.
>
> If a currently listed maintainer is interested in continuing, please
> send me an email.  I plan on removing in-active maintainers in 12 days (
> March 30th).
>

This sounds like a good plan.

>
> 2) I plan removing meta-filesystem and moving recipes to other layers.
>

LGTM, this also means some changes in external layers who might
depends on this layer explicitly. I hope those layer maintainers will
take needed action.

>
> 3)  Meta-gnome, I have heard feed back regarding this layer. Does it
> make sense to remove it and push needed recipes out to  other layers?
>

Agreed here again, I have only fixed this layer in past to keep it afloat to
reduce compile failures e.g. with clang or musl.

>
> I want to get any restructuring done prior to sumo release to lessen
> impact on the Sumo maintainer.
>
>
> regards,
>
> Armin
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

Re: meta-openembedded Layers

[Alexander Kanavin]

On 03/18/2018 11:32 PM, akuster808 wrote:
> 1) I plan on resetting the sub-layer maintainers. Several maintainers
> listed have been inactive.
> 
> If a currently listed maintainer is interested in continuing, please
> send me an email.  I plan on removing in-active maintainers in 12 days (
> March 30th).
> 
> 
> 2) I plan removing meta-filesystem and moving recipes to other layers.
> 
> 
> 3)  Meta-gnome, I have heard feed back regarding this layer. Does it
> make sense to remove it and push needed recipes out to  other layers?

Yes please. Thumbs up from me.

Alex

Re: meta-openembedded Layers

[Martin Jansa]

> 2) I plan removing meta-filesystem and moving recipes to other layers.

I don't have a strong opinion about this, but why meta-filesystems?

In previous discussion there were some requests for smaller, better
manageable layers and this one with 19 recipes and only dependency on
oe-core and meta-oe doesn't look too bad from that POV.

If you move some recipes from it to meta-oe, then some people might
complain even more that meta-oe has too many recipes and doesn't serve any
specific purpose.

Regards,

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 10:38 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 2:32 PM, akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I have been reviewing the meta-openembedded sub-layers and I plan on
> > taking the following actions:
> >
> > Please keep your comments focused on the 3 items below.
> >
> >
> > 1) I plan on resetting the sub-layer maintainers. Several maintainers
> > listed have been inactive.
> >
> > If a currently listed maintainer is interested in continuing, please
> > send me an email.  I plan on removing in-active maintainers in 12 days (
> > March 30th).
> >
>
> This sounds like a good plan.
>
> >
> > 2) I plan removing meta-filesystem and moving recipes to other layers.
> >
>
> LGTM, this also means some changes in external layers who might
> depends on this layer explicitly. I hope those layer maintainers will
> take needed action.
>
> >
> > 3)  Meta-gnome, I have heard feed back regarding this layer. Does it
> > make sense to remove it and push needed recipes out to  other layers?
> >
>
> Agreed here again, I have only fixed this layer in past to keep it afloat
> to
> reduce compile failures e.g. with clang or musl.
>
> >
> > I want to get any restructuring done prior to sumo release to lessen
> > impact on the Sumo maintainer.
> >
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Armin
> >
> >
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > Openembedded-devel mailing list
> > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>

Re: meta-openembedded Layers

[akuster808]

On 03/19/2018 03:47 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > 2) I plan removing meta-filesystem and moving recipes to other layers.
>
> I don't have a strong opinion about this, but why meta-filesystems?
It was an easy on to pick on. Mostly because of its size. smbnetfs has a
dependency on samba which is in meta-networking, so it has to move, IMHO

> In previous discussion there were some requests for smaller, better
> manageable layers and this one with 19 recipes and only dependency on
> oe-core and meta-oe doesn't look too bad from that POV.

I don't recall that conversation but thanks for the context. I am just
trying to shake the tree to see what makes sense to change. There are
currently 7 maintainers listed, many in-active.
>
> If you move some recipes from it to meta-oe, then some people might
> complain even more that meta-oe has too many recipes and doesn't serve
> any specific purpose.

Thanks for the questions and feedback.
- armin
>
> Regards,
>
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 10:38 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com
> <mailto:raj.khem@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 2:32 PM, akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com
>     <mailto:akuster808@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > Hello all,
>     >
>     > I have been reviewing the meta-openembedded sub-layers and I plan on
>     > taking the following actions:
>     >
>     > Please keep your comments focused on the 3 items below.
>     >
>     >
>     > 1) I plan on resetting the sub-layer maintainers. Several
>     maintainers
>     > listed have been inactive.
>     >
>     > If a currently listed maintainer is interested in continuing, please
>     > send me an email.  I plan on removing in-active maintainers in
>     12 days (
>     > March 30th).
>     >
>
>     This sounds like a good plan.
>
>     >
>     > 2) I plan removing meta-filesystem and moving recipes to other
>     layers.
>     >
>
>     LGTM, this also means some changes in external layers who might
>     depends on this layer explicitly. I hope those layer maintainers will
>     take needed action.
>
>     >
>     > 3)  Meta-gnome, I have heard feed back regarding this layer. Does it
>     > make sense to remove it and push needed recipes out to  other
>     layers?
>     >
>
>     Agreed here again, I have only fixed this layer in past to keep it
>     afloat to
>     reduce compile failures e.g. with clang or musl.
>
>     >
>     > I want to get any restructuring done prior to sumo release to lessen
>     > impact on the Sumo maintainer.
>     >
>     >
>     > regards,
>     >
>     > Armin
>     >
>     >
>     > --
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Openembedded-devel mailing list
>     > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
>     <mailto:Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org>
>     >
>     http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>     <http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel>
>     --
>     _______________________________________________
>     Openembedded-devel mailing list
>     Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
>     <mailto:Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org>
>     http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>     <http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel>
>
>

Re: meta-openembedded Layers

[Tom Rini]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1153 bytes --]

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 02:32:15PM -0700, akuster808 wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> I have been reviewing the meta-openembedded sub-layers and I plan on
> taking the following actions:
> 
> Please keep your comments focused on the 3 items below.
> 
> 
> 1) I plan on resetting the sub-layer maintainers. Several maintainers
> listed have been inactive. 
> 
> If a currently listed maintainer is interested in continuing, please
> send me an email.  I plan on removing in-active maintainers in 12 days (
> March 30th).
> 
> 
> 2) I plan removing meta-filesystem and moving recipes to other layers.
> 
> 
> 3)  Meta-gnome, I have heard feed back regarding this layer. Does it
> make sense to remove it and push needed recipes out to  other layers?   
> 
> 
> I want to get any restructuring done prior to sumo release to lessen
> impact on the Sumo maintainer.

I would suggest that for sumo, any layers that do get moved /
re-distributed / whatever, a "dummy" version be kept in place that says
where it moved to (or where recipes were migrated to, or whatever is
appropriate) and then they can be dropped in master.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: meta-openembedded Layers

[Vesa Jääskeläinen]

On 19/03/2018 17.59, Tom Rini wrote:

> I would suggest that for sumo, any layers that do get moved /
> re-distributed / whatever, a "dummy" version be kept in place that says
> where it moved to (or where recipes were migrated to, or whatever is
> appropriate) and then they can be dropped in master.
>
Commit message with details should be enough for this kind of 
information. Leaving files behind would be just confusing.

Thanks,
Vesa Jääskeläinen

Re: meta-openembedded Layers

[Tom Rini]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 833 bytes --]

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 09:29:53PM +0200, Vesa Jääskeläinen wrote:
> On 19/03/2018 17.59, Tom Rini wrote:
> 
> >I would suggest that for sumo, any layers that do get moved /
> >re-distributed / whatever, a "dummy" version be kept in place that says
> >where it moved to (or where recipes were migrated to, or whatever is
> >appropriate) and then they can be dropped in master.
> >
> Commit message with details should be enough for this kind of information.
> Leaving files behind would be just confusing.

I don't mean recipes.  I do mean a README update.  Perhaps even a
layer.conf file that throws an error?  There's a lot of people / use
cases that won't catch the git log nearly as easily as they'll catch a
README.  Even more so since we're talking about layers that've been
around for a long time.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: meta-openembedded Layers

[akuster808]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1472 bytes --]



On 03/19/2018 08:59 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 02:32:15PM -0700, akuster808 wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I have been reviewing the meta-openembedded sub-layers and I plan on
>> taking the following actions:
>>
>> Please keep your comments focused on the 3 items below.
>>
>>
>> 1) I plan on resetting the sub-layer maintainers. Several maintainers
>> listed have been inactive. 
>>
>> If a currently listed maintainer is interested in continuing, please
>> send me an email.  I plan on removing in-active maintainers in 12 days (
>> March 30th).
Patches going out today.

>>
>>
>> 2) I plan removing meta-filesystem and moving recipes to other layers.
Based on Martin's response, I keep meta-filesystem around one more release.
>>
>>
>> 3)  Meta-gnome, I have heard feed back regarding this layer. Does it
>> make sense to remove it and push needed recipes out to  other layers?   
>>
>>
>> I want to get any restructuring done prior to sumo release to lessen
>> impact on the Sumo maintainer.
> I would suggest that for sumo, any layers that do get moved /
> re-distributed / whatever, a "dummy" version be kept in place that says
> where it moved to (or where recipes were migrated to, or whatever is
> appropriate) and then they can be dropped in master.
>
For meta-gnome I decided to BLACKLIST all remaining recipes with planes
to remove them for Thud.  This follows the current blacklist policy.

- Armin


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: meta-openembedded Layers

[Andreas Müller]

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 10:39 PM, akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 03/19/2018 08:59 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 02:32:15PM -0700, akuster808 wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> I have been reviewing the meta-openembedded sub-layers and I plan on
>>> taking the following actions:
>>>
>>> Please keep your comments focused on the 3 items below.
>>>
>>>
>>> 1) I plan on resetting the sub-layer maintainers. Several maintainers
>>> listed have been inactive.
>>>
>>> If a currently listed maintainer is interested in continuing, please
>>> send me an email.  I plan on removing in-active maintainers in 12 days (
>>> March 30th).
> Patches going out today.
>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2) I plan removing meta-filesystem and moving recipes to other layers.
> Based on Martin's response, I keep meta-filesystem around one more release.
>>>
>>>
>>> 3)  Meta-gnome, I have heard feed back regarding this layer. Does it
>>> make sense to remove it and push needed recipes out to  other layers?
>>>
>>>
>>> I want to get any restructuring done prior to sumo release to lessen
>>> impact on the Sumo maintainer.
>> I would suggest that for sumo, any layers that do get moved /
>> re-distributed / whatever, a "dummy" version be kept in place that says
>> where it moved to (or where recipes were migrated to, or whatever is
>> appropriate) and then they can be dropped in master.
>>
> For meta-gnome I decided to BLACKLIST all remaining recipes with planes
> to remove them for Thud.  This follows the current blacklist policy.
>
> - Armin
>
Sorry but this email slipped through for me. Was busy getting sumo
into shape. BTW: have still not the slightest idea what patches might
get applied - so I'll stop to send out more.

FWIW

* I want to continue maintaining meta-xfce.
* I still don't like killing meta-gnome. But go on I'll do my own
layer for those recipe I take care of. I am tired of people
complaining instead sending patches. This is kind of consumer
mentality I wouldn't expect here.

Andreas

Re: meta-openembedded Layers

[Andreas Müller]

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 11:00 PM, Andreas Müller <schnitzeltony@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 10:39 PM, akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/19/2018 08:59 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 02:32:15PM -0700, akuster808 wrote:
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> I have been reviewing the meta-openembedded sub-layers and I plan on
>>>> taking the following actions:
>>>>
>>>> Please keep your comments focused on the 3 items below.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1) I plan on resetting the sub-layer maintainers. Several maintainers
>>>> listed have been inactive.
>>>>
>>>> If a currently listed maintainer is interested in continuing, please
>>>> send me an email.  I plan on removing in-active maintainers in 12 days (
>>>> March 30th).
>> Patches going out today.
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) I plan removing meta-filesystem and moving recipes to other layers.
>> Based on Martin's response, I keep meta-filesystem around one more release.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3)  Meta-gnome, I have heard feed back regarding this layer. Does it
>>>> make sense to remove it and push needed recipes out to  other layers?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I want to get any restructuring done prior to sumo release to lessen
>>>> impact on the Sumo maintainer.
>>> I would suggest that for sumo, any layers that do get moved /
>>> re-distributed / whatever, a "dummy" version be kept in place that says
>>> where it moved to (or where recipes were migrated to, or whatever is
>>> appropriate) and then they can be dropped in master.
>>>
>> For meta-gnome I decided to BLACKLIST all remaining recipes with planes
>> to remove them for Thud.  This follows the current blacklist policy.
>>
>> - Armin
>>
> Sorry but this email slipped through for me. Was busy getting sumo
> into shape. BTW: have still not the slightest idea what patches might
> get applied - so I'll stop to send out more.
>
> FWIW
>
> * I want to continue maintaining meta-xfce.
> * I still don't like killing meta-gnome. But go on I'll do my own
> layer for those recipe I take care of. I am tired of people
> complaining instead sending patches. This is kind of consumer
> mentality I wouldn't expect here.
>
Just to make it clear: I am totally disappointed of the way things are
handled here and what the priorities are:

I've invested a lot of time in several layers for sumo to

1. keep recipes up to date
2. remove outdated recipes and helping people depending on them
3. fix bugs
4. ask for when is sumo is going to appear here exactly without
getting an answer

There are ~60 patches pending for me and again: I have no idea what
status they are in or if there is some rebase necessary or if they're
going to get blacklisted.

Forget me as maintainer for something here and go on blacklisting.
While you are at it how about blacklisting meta-xfce?

Over and out

Andreas

Re: meta-openembedded Layers

[akuster808]

On 04/08/2018 02:00 PM, Andreas Müller wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 10:39 PM, akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 03/19/2018 08:59 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 02:32:15PM -0700, akuster808 wrote:
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> I have been reviewing the meta-openembedded sub-layers and I plan on
>>>> taking the following actions:
>>>>
>>>> Please keep your comments focused on the 3 items below.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1) I plan on resetting the sub-layer maintainers. Several maintainers
>>>> listed have been inactive.
>>>>
>>>> If a currently listed maintainer is interested in continuing, please
>>>> send me an email.  I plan on removing in-active maintainers in 12 days (
>>>> March 30th).
>> Patches going out today.
>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) I plan removing meta-filesystem and moving recipes to other layers.
>> Based on Martin's response, I keep meta-filesystem around one more release.
>>>>
>>>> 3)  Meta-gnome, I have heard feed back regarding this layer. Does it
>>>> make sense to remove it and push needed recipes out to  other layers?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I want to get any restructuring done prior to sumo release to lessen
>>>> impact on the Sumo maintainer.
>>> I would suggest that for sumo, any layers that do get moved /
>>> re-distributed / whatever, a "dummy" version be kept in place that says
>>> where it moved to (or where recipes were migrated to, or whatever is
>>> appropriate) and then they can be dropped in master.
>>>
>> For meta-gnome I decided to BLACKLIST all remaining recipes with planes
>> to remove them for Thud.  This follows the current blacklist policy.
>>
>> - Armin
>>
> Sorry but this email slipped through for me. Was busy getting sumo
> into shape. BTW: have still not the slightest idea what patches might
> get applied - so I'll stop to send out more.

I have all patches either in stagging/master-next which I need to merge
to master-next. I have stagging/master-next2 with all the new ones after
the build started. master-next2 gets built at home to get a sense of new
patches before investing the very long world builds.


I think I have all your patches.

>
> FWIW
>
> * I want to continue maintaining meta-xfce.
That is good. I have you down for that. thanks.

> * I still don't like killing meta-gnome. But go on I'll do my own
> layer for those recipe I take care of. I am tired of people
> complaining instead sending patches. This is kind of consumer
> mentality I wouldn't expect here.
I have put killing meta-gnome on hold for the next 6 months so we can
figure out what to do.  I am black listing recipes that appear not being
used. We can un-blacklist them as we find there are needs.

To be honest, It might make more sense to move the meta-oe/recipes-gnome
to the meta-gnome.  It will make meta-oe smaller and might make
meta-gnome more relevant.

- armin
>
> Andreas

Re: meta-openembedded Layers

[akuster808]

On 04/08/2018 02:33 PM, Andreas Müller wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 11:00 PM, Andreas Müller <schnitzeltony@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 10:39 PM, akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/19/2018 08:59 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 02:32:15PM -0700, akuster808 wrote:
>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been reviewing the meta-openembedded sub-layers and I plan on
>>>>> taking the following actions:
>>>>>
>>>>> Please keep your comments focused on the 3 items below.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) I plan on resetting the sub-layer maintainers. Several maintainers
>>>>> listed have been inactive.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a currently listed maintainer is interested in continuing, please
>>>>> send me an email.  I plan on removing in-active maintainers in 12 days (
>>>>> March 30th).
>>> Patches going out today.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) I plan removing meta-filesystem and moving recipes to other layers.
>>> Based on Martin's response, I keep meta-filesystem around one more release.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3)  Meta-gnome, I have heard feed back regarding this layer. Does it
>>>>> make sense to remove it and push needed recipes out to  other layers?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I want to get any restructuring done prior to sumo release to lessen
>>>>> impact on the Sumo maintainer.
>>>> I would suggest that for sumo, any layers that do get moved /
>>>> re-distributed / whatever, a "dummy" version be kept in place that says
>>>> where it moved to (or where recipes were migrated to, or whatever is
>>>> appropriate) and then they can be dropped in master.
>>>>
>>> For meta-gnome I decided to BLACKLIST all remaining recipes with planes
>>> to remove them for Thud.  This follows the current blacklist policy.
>>>
>>> - Armin
>>>
>> Sorry but this email slipped through for me. Was busy getting sumo
>> into shape. BTW: have still not the slightest idea what patches might
>> get applied - so I'll stop to send out more.
>>
>> FWIW
>>
>> * I want to continue maintaining meta-xfce.
>> * I still don't like killing meta-gnome. But go on I'll do my own
>> layer for those recipe I take care of. I am tired of people
>> complaining instead sending patches. This is kind of consumer
>> mentality I wouldn't expect here.
>>
> Just to make it clear: I am totally disappointed of the way things are
> handled here and what the priorities are:
>
> I've invested a lot of time in several layers for sumo to
>
> 1. keep recipes up to date
> 2. remove outdated recipes and helping people depending on them
> 3. fix bugs
I appreciate all the time and effort you put in maintaining the layers
you care about.

> 4. ask for when is sumo is going to appear here exactly without
> getting an answer
If I branch for sumo now, it wont be built anymore in the world builds
so we wait until core stops changing.  meta-or always lags in the
branching from core.
>
> There are ~60 patches pending for me and again: 
pending as in submitted to be included in master or are you waiting for
merges to meta-openembedded core before sending more.  Our builds are
about 3 day's long and if it bares, they get restarted and that adds to
delays when thing get merged.

> I have no idea what
> status they are in or if there is some rebase necessary or if they're
> going to get blacklisted.

I have been using stagging/master-next for 5 months now.
>
> Forget me as maintainer for something here and go on blacklisting.
That would be a shame but if you are sure, you can send patches to
remove yourself as maintainer of meta-xfce.

- armin
> While you are at it how about blacklisting meta-xfce?
>
> Over and out
>
> Andreas