From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA847E014F5 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 04:08:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Jun 2013 04:05:37 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,958,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="336936878" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.122.97]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Jun 2013 04:07:59 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: "Rifenbark, Scott M" Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 12:07:58 +0100 Message-ID: <1527627.N79fC8qGyO@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.10.3 (Linux/3.8.0-25-generic; KDE/4.10.3; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <41DEA4B02DBDEF40A0F3B6D0DDB123797FF523E5@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <41DEA4B02DBDEF40A0F3B6D0DDB123797FF5182B@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com> <41DEA4B02DBDEF40A0F3B6D0DDB123797FF521C9@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com> <41DEA4B02DBDEF40A0F3B6D0DDB123797FF523E5@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "yocto@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: Layer input X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 11:08:01 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Friday 28 June 2013 10:50:01 Rifenbark, Scott M wrote: > Here is the story on the relationship between the YP Metadata Layers as > listed in the YP Source Repositories and the OpenEmbedded Metadata Index. > Functionally, the YP layers are a subset of the OE layers. However, the YP > layers are not a true subset of the OE layers. The YP layers have many > layers that do not appear in the OE index for one reason or another. I wouldn't say many, there are just a few exceptions. The way to look at it is the OE layer index is a central directory of layers that should be advertised, whereas what you see on git.yoctoproject.org is simply a listing of all of the repositories on git.yoctoproject.org, of which a subset are layers and a subset of those are current, maintained and should be promoted for people to use (and all of the latter should be in the OE layer index). > Some YP layers are deprecated (e.g. meta-dlna), some should not be there and > are being actively worked for removal or movement (e.g. poky-extras and > yocto-docs). Some are experimental layers (e.g. any layer that starts with > "experimental"). And one is a contribution layer used by the Yocto Team > (e.g. meta-intel-contrib). FWIW, like the other contrib repos I think the latter is open access, anyone can get commit rights to facilitate sending pull requests. > The text I create supporting this "layer" figure will describe this > relationship so people will know from where existing layers originate. > > I am deciding against adding more boxes to the already large figure and am > going to retain just the large "Layers" box. It will have supporting text > that describes how a layer could be user-created, could originate from the > YP Metadata Layers list, or could originate from the OpenEmbedded Metadata > Index of layers. Looking over the most recent version of this figure I'd suggest: * conf/bblayers.conf in the distro layer shouldn't be there. * The recipes-kernel in the distro layer should be dropped. I know we include linux-libc-headers-yocto in Poky but that is not typical. * I think maybe like the other diagrams it would help if there were a different emphasis for items that are mandatory and items that are optional (e.g. bolding mandatory items or greying out optional items). * Replace with * Replace with Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre