From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9708E757CE; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:26:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wibdq8 with SMTP id dq8so31630905wib.1; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:26:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=UoRAnGaAsa30P8mlijburg252bmSpQDr7TexLCARL+4=; b=UTAul+zBaP6a6akOTRPIq1m5R/MhQtpYM17D5MiDwAH4x+ElpXypj7Rn6FL2y97Smg U59ZbDCj/pP6ZP3gCkojIssEsI3qyLfoW5lPOu0DcKtyE/X6GULTsFtQq2ghXlCTCEZL N8jbH7ci30xu3yhHrXjsuHAK3liY4pa8GEJXEQU2ifJ0A85TH2TJuE177MQA2O5q/9uV Peq3t2Xqu4OOdPJAnvumLWbosykrtZsc4yvM4N0y3/4N/spaghcA2zuG+/ib2i/ovHsa M0Ji1AJ1dh4+E+T7nWmp2cvCorv9DLPkg5l3Ixd3fIKwpyu5vxju+C5uaLy8GgnPBplb NyXw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.187.51 with SMTP id fp19mr51080371wjc.67.1435105583235; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:26:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.167.2 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:26:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5589E809.8060000@gmail.com> References: <5589E809.8060000@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 02:26:23 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Jansa To: akuster808 Cc: openembedded-devel , OE-core Subject: Re: Future of Qt4 recipes 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: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:26:24 -0000 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb03dce81069a0519388ea5 --047d7bb03dce81069a0519388ea5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I agree with #2. Argument that it's still used by many projects shouldn't be used against layers :). On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:13 AM, akuster808 wrote: > > > On 06/22/2015 03:43 AM, Burton, Ross wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> So, Qt 4.8.7 was released last month[1]. Support for Qt4 stops at the >> end of 2015, and 4.8.7 is planned to be the last ever release of Qt4. >> It's still mandated by the long-awaited LSB 5 but I think it's fair to >> say that the majority of developers have moved to Qt5. So, what should >> we do with Qt4 moving forward?[2] I see several options: >> >> 1) There's still lots of people using Qt4 in production, please keep it >> in oe-core! (and revisit in six months time) >> 2) Move Qt4 recipes and classes to a meta-qt4 layer now so that oe-core >> 1.9 ships without Qt4, and anyone wanting full LSB compliance or Qt4 >> will need to add that layer to their distro. >> >> Personally, I vote for (2). Any other comments? >> > > #2 sounds fine. > > would recipes-lsb move out to its own layer too? > > - Armin > >> >> Ross >> >> [1] https://blog.qt.io/blog/2015/05/26/qt-4-8-7-released/ >> [2] https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7812 >> >> >> -- > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > --047d7bb03dce81069a0519388ea5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I agree with #2.

Argument that it's= still used by many projects shouldn't be used against layers :).
=

On Wed, Jun= 24, 2015 at 1:13 AM, akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com> w= rote:


On 06/22/2015 03:43 AM, Burton, Ross wrote:
Hi,

So, Qt 4.8.7 was released last month[1].=C2=A0 Support for Qt4 stops at the=
end of 2015, and 4.8.7 is planned to be the last ever release of Qt4.
It's still mandated by the long-awaited LSB 5 but I think it's fair= to
say that the majority of developers have moved to Qt5. So, what should
we do with Qt4 moving forward?[2]=C2=A0 I see several options:

1) There's still lots of people using Qt4 in production, please keep it=
in oe-core!=C2=A0 (and revisit in six months time)
2) Move Qt4 recipes and classes to a meta-qt4 layer now so that oe-core
1.9 ships without Qt4, and anyone wanting full LSB compliance or Qt4
will need to add that layer to their distro.

Personally, I vote for (2).=C2=A0 Any other comments?

 #2 sounds fine.

would recipes-lsb move out to its own layer too?

- Armin

Ross

[1] https://blog.qt.io/blog/2015/05/26/qt-4-8= -7-released/
[2] https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_b= ug.cgi?id=3D7812


--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailma= n/listinfo/openembedded-core

--047d7bb03dce81069a0519388ea5-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9708E757CE; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:26:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wibdq8 with SMTP id dq8so31630905wib.1; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:26:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=UoRAnGaAsa30P8mlijburg252bmSpQDr7TexLCARL+4=; b=UTAul+zBaP6a6akOTRPIq1m5R/MhQtpYM17D5MiDwAH4x+ElpXypj7Rn6FL2y97Smg U59ZbDCj/pP6ZP3gCkojIssEsI3qyLfoW5lPOu0DcKtyE/X6GULTsFtQq2ghXlCTCEZL N8jbH7ci30xu3yhHrXjsuHAK3liY4pa8GEJXEQU2ifJ0A85TH2TJuE177MQA2O5q/9uV Peq3t2Xqu4OOdPJAnvumLWbosykrtZsc4yvM4N0y3/4N/spaghcA2zuG+/ib2i/ovHsa M0Ji1AJ1dh4+E+T7nWmp2cvCorv9DLPkg5l3Ixd3fIKwpyu5vxju+C5uaLy8GgnPBplb NyXw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.187.51 with SMTP id fp19mr51080371wjc.67.1435105583235; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:26:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.167.2 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:26:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5589E809.8060000@gmail.com> References: <5589E809.8060000@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 02:26:23 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Jansa To: akuster808 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.12 Cc: openembedded-devel , OE-core Subject: Re: [OE-core] Future of Qt4 recipes X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:26:24 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I agree with #2. Argument that it's still used by many projects shouldn't be used against layers :). On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:13 AM, akuster808 wrote: > > > On 06/22/2015 03:43 AM, Burton, Ross wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> So, Qt 4.8.7 was released last month[1]. Support for Qt4 stops at the >> end of 2015, and 4.8.7 is planned to be the last ever release of Qt4. >> It's still mandated by the long-awaited LSB 5 but I think it's fair to >> say that the majority of developers have moved to Qt5. So, what should >> we do with Qt4 moving forward?[2] I see several options: >> >> 1) There's still lots of people using Qt4 in production, please keep it >> in oe-core! (and revisit in six months time) >> 2) Move Qt4 recipes and classes to a meta-qt4 layer now so that oe-core >> 1.9 ships without Qt4, and anyone wanting full LSB compliance or Qt4 >> will need to add that layer to their distro. >> >> Personally, I vote for (2). Any other comments? >> > > #2 sounds fine. > > would recipes-lsb move out to its own layer too? > > - Armin > >> >> Ross >> >> [1] https://blog.qt.io/blog/2015/05/26/qt-4-8-7-released/ >> [2] https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7812 >> >> >> -- > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >