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

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 12-09-05 10:20 AM, William Mills wrote:
> On 09/04/2012 07:23 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/04/2012 01:25 PM, William Mills wrote:
>>
>>> Darren: Is it true you can't get @ the Intel BSP's w/o also getting the
>>> poky distro defs? That does seem to mixing things a bit. (I am not
>>> claiming meta-ti is clean yet but I want to understand the Intel
>>> examples.)
>>>
>>
>> It isn't something we test as part of the QA that we perform. I mostly
>> expect people building meta-intel to be building with meta-yocto
>> (although I wouldn't take a hard line on requiring it). That said, I
>> removed meta-yocto from a meta-intel/meta-fri2 build and removed
>> DISTRO=poky from my local.conf and successfully built and booted a
>> core-image-minimal build on an FRI2 this afternoon without any changes.
>>
>
> Thanks! My confidence is restored.
>
> As long as including meta-yocto does not interfere with other BSPs or
> distros etc then there should be no harm in your assumption.
>
> I would be interested to know what Mentor Graphics and Wind River do on
> their products. Do they include meta-yocto? (YP is not all about
> comercial OS support but I know these orginatations have done the due
> diligence on layer compatibility for a non-poky distro.)

Layering flexibility is important, so we work largely on oe-core
vs meta-yocto. That being said, there are elements in meta-yocto that
are of interest, so it can be included in used, but with layers that
get the ordering and priority correct to override/preserve appropriately.

But sorting out exactly what we are talking about in this thread, would
make using meta-yocto (or whatever the elements of it become), that much
easier to do.

Cheers,

Bruce

>
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto at yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto