From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f46.google.com (mail-it0-f46.google.com [209.85.214.46]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B1126FF6B for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:20:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f46.google.com with SMTP id h190so43866175ith.1 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:20:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/RdQbxyWN9s5EPeiTsnb9u7nEqChbNtQDb4QAAKhHdk=; b=lHSP991jCF7AV+SR1QoiPgJdd2nBrYXpYwRtfV8/jKqWtTxaTgaEGE79UWLgKgDs9W mx4IoKFRty4pCZbqt90hwrRT7evryUY+fcMGm5yqyIzCCUznt33nXIm4n0WFpGdB1Wk7 /beAZ/mNdkCV4PAySwInTJMPlKC7/ugk+czG9/A6tdbk+fOWEB00YkftdHuCzQrKIawb zbwKCSz+KbE3lhctU4HsZEBLxHNiFmbtG4AQLARuuwIxkofcvMM/oZ2BSzZxSG16VVBR a/jD1eaYLJwbpK2xq5xNLfCJbZc/tu86OaCoJxHXVZzgVJPTAAgh23F4TewpzwqBGQis ucRw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/RdQbxyWN9s5EPeiTsnb9u7nEqChbNtQDb4QAAKhHdk=; b=V2aGpD/pbWe4Esf+mZAxzXbrg3DWKo1kcx1BbYnbOCmbr38yd8cq4p1/YAlz2YogUW 239T1pe54ZUBTxp9g1DoPC15b29pSoYoBXUBiNnjwBgL137VL6ihxWmKntwg8LNpOeES krhenyUwJkQBSAL8uXmL2ceWF+wgducxTJrSnLgdVCsWX9exCJ3r5CPfQmud1mMAbIMs cKXtS0wrM4mA/68sLzoG1qFOX34mN4yE00x8JcsIJMBsa5d/vo3dXJM7oGqBcBaqbyfu mTfU3cdOGKlASGWgr9/5NXeB7icqYJOGyTe0Cim7RgYS67CKyBlgRkcufJ2J16dSYrlE s8LQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLFmkOngHIOAP0+b8NXWXEoXBj6dc+g1T8f4BaNjdnrCy/afOUZKttzrrReVL1fyqtw X-Received: by 10.36.65.71 with SMTP id x68mr2260234ita.86.1465827631008; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:20:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8D775.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.215.117]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a36sm7978492ioj.2.2016.06.13.07.20.28 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:20:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1465827626.28632.31.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Otavio Salvador Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 16:20:26 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <1465572809.13979.185.camel@linuxfoundation.org> <20160610160710.GA18625@openSUSE-i7.site> <1465575223.13979.188.camel@linuxfoundation.org> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: bitbake-devel , openembedded-architecture Subject: Re: [Openembedded-architecture] Multi-configuration builds X-BeenThere: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussion that advance bitbake development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:20:31 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 2016-06-13 at 10:48 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > Would people really want to support different bblayer files? That would > > complicate things quite a lot :/. > > The multi configuration should imply same metadata setup; for > different things people need to use different builddirs. I agree. Using the same set of layers is sometimes a bit painful to achieve when BSP layers assume that merely adding the layer is supposed to modify the resulting build, regardless which MACHINE is selected, but that's a problem that should be fixed in those BSP layers. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.