From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 6.mo4.mail-out.ovh.net ([188.165.36.253] helo=mo4.mail-out.ovh.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qzlw3-0007Rt-3L for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2011 10:50:43 +0200 Received: from mail92.ha.ovh.net (b6.ovh.net [213.186.33.56]) by mo4.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with SMTP id EA669FFA51A for ; Sat, 3 Sep 2011 09:30:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queueout) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 3 Sep 2011 09:30:28 +0200 Received: from tal33-3-82-233-81-124.fbx.proxad.net (HELO ?192.168.2.9?) (ebenard%eukrea.com@82.233.81.124) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 3 Sep 2011 09:30:28 +0200 Message-ID: <4E61D794.9050602@eukrea.com> Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2011 09:30:28 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Eric_B=E9nard?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0.1) Gecko/20110830 Thunderbird/6.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Ovh-Mailout: 178.32.228.4 (mo4.mail-out.ovh.net) References: <1314962732.3526.32.camel@mattotaupa> <1314976910.3526.36.camel@mattotaupa> <1314989318.17121.11.camel@lenovo.internal.reciva.com> <201109022129.26555.schnitzeltony@gmx.de> <1315000152.6109.14.camel@mattotaupa> In-Reply-To: <1315000152.6109.14.camel@mattotaupa> X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 15534041015159467337 X-Ovh-Remote: 82.233.81.124 (tal33-3-82-233-81-124.fbx.proxad.net) X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net) X-Spam-Check: DONE|U 0.500011/N X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: 0 X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrfeeftddrudeiucetggdotefuucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuqfggjfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenuc Subject: Re: Please merge lists openembedded-devel and openembedded-core again. X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2011 08:50:43 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le 02/09/2011 23:49, Paul Menzel a =E9crit : > Am Freitag, den 02.09.2011, 23:34 +0200 schrieb Koen Kooi: >> Op 02-09-11 21:29, Andreas M=FCller schreef: >>> I would even prefer having additional meta-oe list separated from >>> oe-dev. >> >> If there's enough need for it, that can get arranged. > > Why should that be needed? Maybe proposals could be explained and backe= d up > with arguments for a discussion. > having a list for legacy oe and a list for new oe seems reasonnable : tha= t's not the same thing and legacy oe development is no more active (and activ= ity=20 on the mailing list doesn't really show that oe legacy is dead). And when a user has understood were to find layers, how to work with all = these layers, where are the recipes he needs in all the layers' directory tree,= what=20 is the logic (or its absence) to classify recipes, how to customize them = to=20 its need, and how to find in all that mess what broke something which was= =20 working before the last pull, I'm sure he has the knowledge to subscribe = to=20 the list of the layers he is using in order to follow their development ;= -) Eric