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

[Richard Purdie]

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