Op 12 jun. 2012, om 09:22 heeft William Mills het volgende geschreven: > On 06/12/2012 09:44 AM, Koen Kooi wrote: >> >> Op 11 jun. 2012, om 20:17 heeft Denys Dmytriyenko het volgende geschreven: >> >>> Koen, et al, >>> >>> This is a RFC for creating an additional "extras" layer inside meta-ti to >>> contain pieces and components that are either slightly outdated (i.e. old >>> Davinci boards, hawk/crane etc.) or have best-effort status (TI81x, anything >>> DSP-related, etc.) or require non-standard dependencies besides OE-Core >>> (systemd?) with the possibility of moving them back to "main" meta-ti in the >>> future, once they become "first-class citizens", i.e. gain current and >>> continuing support. >> > >> If it's going to be split this way I'd like to move all beagleboard.org >> related things out of meta-ti and into it's own seperate repo. > > We should do whatever makes the most sense and serves all the user's > use-cases. Angstrom beagleboard is an important use case but so is oe-core > only on beagleboard and AM335x etc. We also need people to understand what > things are being built and tested every night vs something that was pretty > much working when it was tried 6 months ago. > >> If the beagle recipes are demoted to 2nd class citizens we have no incentive >> anymore to be in meta-ti. > > I thought it was just the older beagleboard stuff that was moving? Or are > you complaining that not every feature of your current builds are available > using just oe-core?
I don't have *any* builds that do what they need to do with only oe-core + meta-ti. Till that changes I lack any form of incentive to actively work on oe-core only efforts. I'm not saying that to be mean, just to make my position really clear. > It is true that we are trying to do two things here: > 1) separate things that require layers beyond oe-core > 2) separate things that are not tested and supported to the same level > > It was your assertion that we did not want too many layers. Unfortunately > that means things that require layers beyond oe-core need to be in the second > layer. Sorry if you see that as being a second class citizen. > > There are large parts of beagleboard and beaglebone that do work with only > oe-core and are built and tested regularly. Finding the right place for > these pieces should, I think, be the focus of the discussion. > > As I have said before, If you want a seperate layer/repo to support the > specifics of Angstrom beagleboard/beaglebone _I_ think that would be fine. No, in such a scenario I would want all the beagleboard.org stuff removed from meta-ti and have only *one* repo/layer with beagle stuff in it. Doing a split like you say will involve too much extra work to be worth the time and effort. Especially if the 'extras' layer will include all the bitrotted stuff as well. >From a beagleboard.org perspective an oe-core only build is useless at this >moment[1], the non-core bits are the ones that make the experience great. I do >see that meta-ti needs to support an oe-core only option for their officially >supported machines. Since the beagleboard.org boards are not supported by TI >it makes sense to move them out and have the beagle layer depend on meta-ti >for things like dsp and 3d support. regards, Koen [1] Which of course can change in the future when oe-core gets reworked e.g. move systemd there. _______________________________________________ meta-ti mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-ti
