On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 01:54:17PM -0700, Philip Balister wrote: > On 09/17/2012 01:36 PM, Enrico wrote: > >On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Maupin, Chase <[email protected]> wrote: > >>So really I think the question is do we have an agreement on "meta-beagle" > >>or whatever it should be called, a timeline for it to be created and the > >>recipes moved? Let's make meta-ti be the foundation BSP that we can all > >>build on top of and nothing more or less. > > > >Sorry to jump into the discussion but...am i the only one that thinks > >that having meta-beagle, meta-panda, meta-whateverTIboard is crazy? > > Whether or not Beagle is a TI board .... > > It seems like the broader issue (and one I am falling over at the > moment) is that we want some image recipes in BSP's. The images have > different layer dependencies. > > So we have a set of small images (such as board bring up and test > images) that depend only on oe-core, and more complex images that > depend on other layers. We can always mask the more complex images > for the case where we want to only build against oe-core, but this > is not the most convenient from a user point of view.
That's the whole point of this prolonged discussion... > It seems like we need a way for an image to specify the layers it > requires and if those layers are not present, the recipe will not > build, but will not break parsing either. Ah, that flexibility would have been nice in general, although it might be too easy to use it the wrong way or abuse. -- Denys _______________________________________________ meta-ti mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-ti
