[meta-freescale] [RFC PATCH] fsl-commity-bsp: Add meta-qt5
eric.nelson at boundarydevices.com
Mon Mar 24 08:42:21 PDT 2014
Hi Daiane (and Otavio),
Otavio, I'm not sure why, but I didn't receive the e-mail
that Daiane's responding to, so I'll reply here.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: meta-freescale-bounces at yoctoproject.org [mailto:meta-freescale-
>> bounces at yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Otavio Salvador
>> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 5:37 PM
>> To: Eric Nelson
>> Cc: meta-freescale at yoctoproject.org
>> Subject: Re: [meta-freescale] [RFC PATCH] fsl-commity-bsp: Add meta-qt5
>> Hello Eric,
>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Eric Nelson
>> <eric.nelson at boundarydevices.com> wrote:
>>> Most of the energy in Qt for Freescale processors is in the area of
>>> Qt5, not Qt4.
>>> Since the meta-qt5 layer is tiny (currently < 2M), there's little
>>> downside to including it to make it easier to include.
>>> Change-Id: Ifa2850f54728626bbd51ae7924a8bc082ca6f359
>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Nelson <eric.nelson at boundarydevices.com>
>> I am not sure we ought to include it or not. I see valid points for both
>> and I will focus my answer in the cons:
>> * Documentation: our Release Notes, User Guide and FAQ are still
>> uncomplete. Add new stuff will only make it worse as those will also need
>> to be documented.
This is always a question of degree, right?
>> * Tests: We see limited tests using the images we have and people does not
>> provide much feedback when we open the test form. More things will only
>> complicate it more.
Do you think this is because
a.) people are just having success and not reporting it, or
b.) folks aren't using the images
I tend to think a.), but I'm not sure.
If it's b.), then are the images matching what users are looking for?
> Until here I understand. And I agree.
>> * Size: more metadata means more updates and maintenance. We need more
>> people helping the metadata maintenance before extend it.
I think this is somewhat un-related to Qt5.
> We already have almost 100% of the boards with maintainers. What do you mean,
> when you say we need more maintenance before extend the metadata?
> I still don´t have a clear idea if I like or dislike the idea of downloading
> more meta layers by default.
> I´m still deciding ;)
My initial thinking was that by having meta-qt5 included, we'll make
it easier to test the qt5-layer that's already included in meta-fsl-arm.
>> I cannot a lot more time in FSL Community BSP that I do. I do it in my free
>> time and before extending it we need more people committed to the
>> maintenance work.
>> Those are my remarks about this, and meta-browser, addition.
I hear you loud and clear.
I see that you've posted another response to the thread that has
some constructive thoughts about how to remedy this.
And by the way: Thank you very much for all of your efforts!
More information about the meta-freescale