Patchwork [0/1] remove gnome-vfs completely

login
mail settings
Submitter Zhai, Edwin
Date Sept. 27, 2011, 1:49 p.m.
Message ID <cover.1317131040.git.edwin.zhai@intel.com>
Download mbox
Permalink /patch/12205/
State New, archived
Headers show

Pull-request

git://git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib gzhai/master2

Comments

Zhai, Edwin - Sept. 27, 2011, 1:49 p.m.
From: Zhai Edwin <edwin.zhai@intel.com>

All,
This patch remove gnome-vfs completely: remove itself, dependence on it, and
other obsolete recipe depending on it.

Last time, I remember one recipe in oe-core depends on gnome-vfs, but nobody
depends on it. Could somebody have a double check on oe-core?

Thanks,
Edwin

The following changes since commit e3c5d7a90ae179af0ac128ea4dfc1a5a6602c2e4:

  libtool: Fix an issue where unnecessary rpaths were being injected (2011-09-26 17:56:44 +0100)

are available in the git repository at:
  git://git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib gzhai/master2
  http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=gzhai/master2

Zhai Edwin (1):
  gnome-vfs: remove this obsolete recipe completely in favor of
    GIO/GVFS

 .../recipes-gnome/libgsf/libgsf_1.14.5.bb          |    8 ++-
 meta-demoapps/recipes-graphics/clutter/table.inc   |   13 -----
 .../recipes-graphics/clutter/table/fixes.patch     |   16 ------
 .../recipes-graphics/clutter/table_git.bb          |   15 ------
 .../conf/distro/include/distro_tracking_fields.inc |   11 ----
 meta/conf/multilib.conf                            |    1 -
 .../gnome/gnome-vfs-2.24.4/gconftool-lossage.patch |   13 -----
 .../gnome-vfs-2.24.4/gnome-vfs-no-kerberos.patch   |   53 --------------------
 meta/recipes-gnome/gnome/gnome-vfs_2.24.4.bb       |   50 ------------------
 meta/recipes-kernel/oprofile/oprofileui.inc        |    2 +-
 10 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 175 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 meta-demoapps/recipes-graphics/clutter/table.inc
 delete mode 100644 meta-demoapps/recipes-graphics/clutter/table/fixes.patch
 delete mode 100644 meta-demoapps/recipes-graphics/clutter/table_git.bb
 delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-gnome/gnome/gnome-vfs-2.24.4/gconftool-lossage.patch
 delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-gnome/gnome/gnome-vfs-2.24.4/gnome-vfs-no-kerberos.patch
 delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-gnome/gnome/gnome-vfs_2.24.4.bb
Zhai, Edwin - Sept. 27, 2011, 2:02 p.m.
BTW,
I found many recipes in meta-demoapps are not maintained: no 
LIC_FILES_CHKSUM/SRCREV, no workable SRC_URI, and even no layer.conf under 
meta-demoapps.

We need more test for demoapps, and require each commit to take care of them, or 
else remove them completely...


On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 09:49:25PM +0800, edwin.zhai@intel.com wrote:
> From: Zhai Edwin <edwin.zhai@intel.com>
> 
> All,
> This patch remove gnome-vfs completely: remove itself, dependence on it, and
> other obsolete recipe depending on it.
> 
> Last time, I remember one recipe in oe-core depends on gnome-vfs, but nobody
> depends on it. Could somebody have a double check on oe-core?
> 
> Thanks,
> Edwin
> 
> The following changes since commit e3c5d7a90ae179af0ac128ea4dfc1a5a6602c2e4:
> 
>   libtool: Fix an issue where unnecessary rpaths were being injected (2011-09-26 17:56:44 +0100)
> 
> are available in the git repository at:
>   git://git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib gzhai/master2
>   http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=gzhai/master2
> 
> Zhai Edwin (1):
>   gnome-vfs: remove this obsolete recipe completely in favor of
>     GIO/GVFS
> 
>  .../recipes-gnome/libgsf/libgsf_1.14.5.bb          |    8 ++-
>  meta-demoapps/recipes-graphics/clutter/table.inc   |   13 -----
>  .../recipes-graphics/clutter/table/fixes.patch     |   16 ------
>  .../recipes-graphics/clutter/table_git.bb          |   15 ------
>  .../conf/distro/include/distro_tracking_fields.inc |   11 ----
>  meta/conf/multilib.conf                            |    1 -
>  .../gnome/gnome-vfs-2.24.4/gconftool-lossage.patch |   13 -----
>  .../gnome-vfs-2.24.4/gnome-vfs-no-kerberos.patch   |   53 --------------------
>  meta/recipes-gnome/gnome/gnome-vfs_2.24.4.bb       |   50 ------------------
>  meta/recipes-kernel/oprofile/oprofileui.inc        |    2 +-
>  10 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 175 deletions(-)
>  delete mode 100644 meta-demoapps/recipes-graphics/clutter/table.inc
>  delete mode 100644 meta-demoapps/recipes-graphics/clutter/table/fixes.patch
>  delete mode 100644 meta-demoapps/recipes-graphics/clutter/table_git.bb
>  delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-gnome/gnome/gnome-vfs-2.24.4/gconftool-lossage.patch
>  delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-gnome/gnome/gnome-vfs-2.24.4/gnome-vfs-no-kerberos.patch
>  delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-gnome/gnome/gnome-vfs_2.24.4.bb
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Paul Eggleton - Sept. 27, 2011, 2:16 p.m.
On Tuesday 27 September 2011 15:02:24 Zhai, Edwin wrote:
> BTW,
> I found many recipes in meta-demoapps are not maintained: no
> LIC_FILES_CHKSUM/SRCREV, no workable SRC_URI, and even no layer.conf under
> meta-demoapps.
> 
> We need more test for demoapps, and require each commit to take care of
> them, or else remove them completely...

My personal opinion as far as OE-core is concerned is that the whole of meta-
demoapps should be removed; perhaps the recipes within it can be provided in 
another layer (which we can then use within the Yocto project if desired) but 
they do not belong in OE-core IMHO.

Cheers,
Paul
Richard Purdie - Sept. 27, 2011, 4:19 p.m.
On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 15:16 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 September 2011 15:02:24 Zhai, Edwin wrote:
> > BTW,
> > I found many recipes in meta-demoapps are not maintained: no
> > LIC_FILES_CHKSUM/SRCREV, no workable SRC_URI, and even no layer.conf under
> > meta-demoapps.
> > 
> > We need more test for demoapps, and require each commit to take care of
> > them, or else remove them completely...
> 
> My personal opinion as far as OE-core is concerned is that the whole of meta-
> demoapps should be removed; perhaps the recipes within it can be provided in 
> another layer (which we can then use within the Yocto project if desired) but 
> they do not belong in OE-core IMHO.

I agree it needs to become a separately layer and some of the components
there might be better in other locations.

Its something we meant to deal with later in the OE-Core development
cycle and basically forgot. Maybe someone could file an enhancement
bug? :)

First step would be to move it whole to its own layer repo.

Cheers,

Richard
Otavio Salvador - Sept. 27, 2011, 4:56 p.m.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 13:19, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
...
> First step would be to move it whole to its own layer repo.

I think we can just remove them all and let the necessity tell us what
is really required.
Paul Eggleton - Sept. 27, 2011, 5 p.m.
On Tuesday 27 September 2011 17:56:02 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 13:19, Richard Purdie
> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> ...
> 
> > First step would be to move it whole to its own layer repo.
> 
> I think we can just remove them all and let the necessity tell us what
> is really required.

I think that's what Richard is suggesting, as far as OE-core is concerned.

Cheers,
Paul