Re: Make meta-ti comply with Yocto Project BSP requirements

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 11:26 +0100, Tomas Frydrych wrote:
> On 14/09/12 09:08, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > 3. Inheriting (i.e. inherit systemd) classes from another layer, such as 
> > meta-systemd. This behavior breaks parsing and requires BBMASK-ing those 
> > problematic recipes. Although, it requires an "application" layer and not a 
> > "distribution" one, it's quite bad nonetheless, as it breaks parsing. High 
> > priority.
> 
> I am not sure about this one; it is reasonable / necessary for a bsp
> layer to provide an -initd / -systemd packages (e.g., the pvr drivers
> need this, the gstreamer-ti package needs this), and as long as there is
> no systemd.bbclass in oe-core, I suspect the only answer is to split the
> bsp layer into -bsp, -bsp-initd and --bsp-systemd. I am not sure whether
> such endless proliferation of layers is a particularly good solution?

I don't think PVR modules having a dependency on some particular init
system is a good thing.

What we need is a good core init system architecture and then these
pieces can plug into that in whatever way is appropriate.

I appreciate we're not there yet however I think the overall goal of
separating hardware support from "policy" is a good one. There are a few
pain points we need to work through but if it was easy, we'd already
have done it :)

systemd support in OE-Core is being deferred to 1.4 as I want it done
well and would be too rushed given where we're at in the schedule now.

Cheers,

Richard