On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:00:27AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 09:10:25PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 9:07 PM, Otavio Salvador > >> <ota...@ossystems.com.br> wrote: > >> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Richard Purdie > >> > <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> >> I could combo-layer pieces of meta-oe into poky but I'd imagine that > >> >> would create more problems than it would solve too and given the > >> >> general dislike of combo-layer, I think ultimately better layer tooling > >> >> would be a better answer and more acceptable to everyone. > >> > > >> > Poky creates more problems then it solves > >> > >> ... send was too soon ... > >> > >> Poky creates more problems then it solves. > >> > >> - it causes confusion > >> - it avoids the urgency in adopting a setup script > >> - it does not use the layers as we market as being a good thing > >> > >> So adding more things to it, just makes it worse. > >> > >> The setup script is more urgent to be discussed then splitting meta-oe. > > > > I agree that a setup script of some sort (off the top of my head, > > something that takes layer-names as input, checks vs a list, > > fetches/clones, creates a wrapper around bitbake-layers to always add > > them) should be a high priority. I don't have a problem telling my > > customers to clone meta-openembedded and then use the layers that are > > needed in that specific project. But it's painful to have a shell > > for-loop in the docs we provide so they can setup a build. > > I think we ought to start a thread about the tooling, but let's focus > on meta-oe split here.
Agreed. And to be clear, I'm another vote against splitting meta-oe. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel