[OE-core] [Patch v3] gconf: enable gtk+ 2.0 support to build gconf-sanity-check-2

[Khem Raj]

On (17/01/12 11:30), Philip Balister wrote:
> On 01/16/2012 01:45 PM, Phil Blundell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 10:19 -0800, Steve Sakoman wrote:
> >> My tested-by was indeed performed with the meta-oe layer enabled.
> >>
> >> In the future I will make clear what layers were used in my testing.
> >>
> >> I fear that this kind of thing is going to bite us repeatedly :-(
> > 
> > It's never been entirely clear to me why meta-oe needs to override quite
> > so many bits of oe-core as it does.  I think you're probably right that,
> > as long as it continues to do so, and people enable meta-oe during
> > testing, this sort of issue probably is going to continue to occur.
> 
> It sounds like we need to collect a list of bits of oe-core that meta-oe
> overrides and work out a plan to resolve these differences.
> This sort of thing creates a lot of confusion for people (like me) that
> are primarily concerned with getting work done using OE, and are less
> concerned with the inner workings of layers.
> 
> Does anyone have suggestions for identifying these cases and explaining
> why they are that way?

We need to bean out the recipes e.g.

1. Dont exist in oe-core ( they are harmless)
2. Are existing in oe-core but older/newer versions ( find reasons )
3. config changes. Are they common or distro specific can they be moved
   to other appropriate layers

overall look at if some of the recipe differences can be merged into say
oe-core

> 
> I see no sense in forcing people to basically fork layers due to
> unresolved issues between OE-Core and meta-oe.

true

> 
> Philip
>