On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Robert P. J. Day <rpj...@crashcourse.ca> wrote: > first, it's not actually *required* that a layer name start with the > prefix "meta-", is it? pretty sure it's not and, if it isn't, that > should be made abundantly clear. it's fine to point out that it's a > well-established convention but it should still be mentioned > explicitly that it's not necessary.
If we agree that what we currently have is "version 1", and in-line with the philosophy of always throwing away "version 1", my gut feeling is that instead of poky being the base of everything and everything else added on top as layers, I believe the people running this project would start with openembedded-core as the base, with poky being simply one (of many) layers on top and therefore (properly) renamed to meta-poky. My point is that in an ideal world poky should be renamed, to follow the accepted convention; but since it isn't, it demonstrates that layers don't have to start with the "meta-*" prefix. > the fact that meta-yocto is listed > as NON_REMOVABLE might make readers wonder how they're supposed to > know that. why not go with something a lot more people will see, like, > say: > > BBLAYERS = ?" \ <-- and that looks like a typo > /usr/local/src/yocto/meta \ > /usr/local/src/yocto/meta-ti \ > " > > BBLAYERS_NON_REMOVABLE ?= " \ > /usr/local/src/yocto/meta \ > " The whole concept of "non-removable" layers seems redundant. If a person were trying to build an image for i.MX53 that makes use of TI's work, the meta-ti layer would be just as "non-removable" as any other, wouldn't it? _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
