[yocto] yocto beagleboard.conf -- should it not go away?

[Darren Hart]

On 09/04/2012 05:20 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Tomas Frydrych
> <tf+lists.yocto at r-finger.com> 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.
>>
>> 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?
> 
> Definitely not. But I'm not familiar with anyone's (outside of the
> weekly meetings
> that I attend) plans for meta-yocto, so I'm commenting on what I see. You'd need
> someone from TI to comment on their meta-yocto compatibility. And that person
> definitely is not me :)
> 
>>
>> 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.
> 
> All of the above are things that Richard would need to comment on, the yocto
> layering and maintenance is not something that I have control over :)
> 

As far as I understand it, meta-yocto and meta-ti should be able to work
together. If they don't, it's a bug in one or the other or both and we
should work to address it.

The machine namespace collision could be an example of something we need
to fix.

--
Darren

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Technical Lead - Linux Kernel