On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 09:58 +0100, Tomas Frydrych wrote: > Hi Bruce, > > On 03/09/12 22:08, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > > That being said, taking a step back, what are you trying to get out of > > meta-yocto in this scenario ? > > a) I am targeting multiple chips, including TI Omap and Intel Atom. > meta-yocto is a prerequisite for the various machines in meta-intel, so > I have to include meta-yocto if I want to build images for an Intel > chip. Nothing unusual here.
Is that really true? What in meta-intel depends on meta-yocto? This certainly isn't intentional so I'd like to understand more. > b) meta-yocto is the Poky distro layer; if you want to use Poky, then > you need meta-yocto. > > > see above. I misspoke. I don't think there's an intent to make meta-yocto > > and meta-ti work together, but oe-core + meta-ti, that's the combo that > > makes sense. > > See (b) above; you are not saying that Poky is only meant for Intel HW, > are you? > > The basic problem with meta-yocto is that it combines BSP stuff > (meta-intel prerequisite, Atom & Beagle config) with distro stuff (Poky, > Yocto branding). That's convenient for doing QA on a limited set of HW, > but suboptimal for real use; BSP layers simply should not be dependent > on distro layers, it largely defeats the purpose of having layers. > > Splitting out the minimal beagle config into a layer of its own would > improve things quite a bit. Effectively this is what we've now done and was always the intention (see the Yocto Project compatible criteria). Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto