From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from hetzner.pbcl.net (mail.pbcl.net [88.198.119.4]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 945B860686 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 11:34:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cpc6-cmbg17-2-0-cust487.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com ([86.30.57.232] helo=[172.30.1.45]) by hetzner.pbcl.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UxF8d-0002r9-Rk; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:34:20 +0200 Message-ID: <1373542459.2389.323.camel@phil-desktop.brightsign> From: Phil Blundell To: "Burton, Ross" Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:34:19 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <1373539530.2389.320.camel@phil-desktop.brightsign> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] nss: add version 3.15.1 X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 11:34:22 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 12:14 +0100, Burton, Ross wrote: > On 11 July 2013 11:45, Phil Blundell 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.