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

[Khem Raj]

On (04/09/12 16:25), William Mills wrote:
> On 09/04/2012 01:18 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
> >
> >
> >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.
> 
> oe-core + meta-ti should work or it needs to get fixed.
> poky + meta-ti should work or it needs to get fixed.
> 
> However I suspect the 2nd is not in the nightly builds yet.
> 
> Denys is out for the next few days.  He can comment more when he gets back.
> 
> It has been our assumption that there is enough functionality in the
> layer mechanisms that any of the "light weight" BSPs in yocto layer
> could be completely overridden by a more complete layer (meta-ti in
> this example).  In addition the end system integrator should be able
> to override definitions in any BSP layer.
> 
> I suspect the current issue is just growing pains for a case that
> has not been tested.  Lets prove that false before taking more
> drastic action.
> 
> >>>
> >>>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.
> 
> 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.)
> 

angstrom used meta-intel and it does not have meta-yocto that said I
have not built for Intel machines using Angstrom so there might be
issues but it parses fine for me so far.

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

-- 
-Khem