All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com>
Cc: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org
Subject: Re: Make meta-ti comply with Yocto Project BSP requirements
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 13:00:52 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1347624052.13596.5.camel@ted> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <505318E3.9060009@mlbassoc.com>

On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 05:45 -0600, Gary Thomas wrote:
> On 2012-09-14 05:29, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> When that does happen, I hope that it will still be possible to have
> a distribution which uses initd.  Will that be the case, or do we all
> have to follow down the systemd yellow brick road (which I personally
> am not in favour of)?

I want to systemd being optional with people electing to use or not use
it...

Cheers,

Richard




  reply	other threads:[~2012-09-14 12:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-09-14  8:08 Make meta-ti comply with Yocto Project BSP requirements Denys Dmytriyenko
2012-09-14 10:26 ` Tomas Frydrych
2012-09-14 11:29   ` Richard Purdie
2012-09-14 11:45     ` Gary Thomas
2012-09-14 12:00       ` Richard Purdie [this message]
2012-09-14 12:03     ` Tomas Frydrych
2012-09-14 12:23 ` Maupin, Chase

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1347624052.13596.5.camel@ted \
    --to=richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=gary@mlbassoc.com \
    --cc=meta-ti@yoctoproject.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.