[poky] [PATCH 0/2] Add qt3 to poky

[Saul Wold]

On 03/01/2011 05:36 PM, Mark Hatle wrote:
> I think we should be sure to clearly label the Qt3 as only provided for LSB
> compatibility in the recipe, that way if someone tries to use it, they can
> understand why it was added/maintained.
>
Mark,

I thought we talked about this before, I did not think we where going 
for 100% compliant in core yocto, and if needed, this can be part of the 
WR layer in order to complete compliance.  I don't think we want to 
carry around a recipe that is purely for compatibility at that level.

Sau!

> --Mark
>
> On 3/1/11 7:32 PM, Xiaofeng Yan wrote:
>> On 2011年03月02日 00:24, Paul Eggleton wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 01 March 2011 10:33:08 you wrote:
>>>> And since there was never a qtopia for qt3 I highly doubt anyone is using
>>>> qt3/e.
>>> Well, you never know what people are doing behind closed doors. There was also
>>> once a version of SystemRescueCD that was using the then-current version of
>>> QtParted with Qt/Embedded 3.x to avoid including X.
>>>
>>> For our purposes though it's only for LSB at this stage, so embedded appears
>>> to be superfluous.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Paul
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> poky mailing list
>>> poky at yoctoproject.org
>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky
>>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Qt3 could be superfluous because qt4 can include qt3 functions. But the
>> most important is that our lsb-image must meet LSB's requirement.
>> Otherwise our yocto can't be permitted to use the LSB Certified
>> trademark. So qt3 is just for passing LSB test on lsb-image.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Yan
>> _______________________________________________
>> poky mailing list
>> poky at yoctoproject.org
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky
>
> _______________________________________________
> poky mailing list
> poky at yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky