From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from vms173015pub.verizon.net (vms173015pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.15]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29A02E0030F for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:39:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from gandalf.denix.org ([unknown] [71.163.124.23]) by vms173015.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0LYH00CW0DP3GV14@vms173015.mailsrvcs.net> for meta-ti@yoctoproject.org; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:39:04 -0600 (CST) Received: by gandalf.denix.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CC0CF202E0; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:39:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:39:02 -0500 From: Denys Dmytriyenko To: Philip Balister Message-id: <20120127233902.GJ8707@denix.org> References: <7D46E86EC0A8354091174257B2FED1010BF9BA72@DLEE12.ent.ti.com> <4F22E41B.8070708@ti.com> <7D46E86EC0A8354091174257B2FED1010BF9D77A@DLEE12.ent.ti.com> <4F2304E7.7070809@ti.com> <7D46E86EC0A8354091174257B2FED1010BF9D879@DLEE12.ent.ti.com> <20120127202150.GE8707@denix.org> <4F230803.1070503@ti.com> <4F230E21.9010405@balister.org> <20120127205717.GI8707@denix.org> <4F2327E7.5050205@balister.org> MIME-version: 1.0 In-reply-to: <4F2327E7.5050205@balister.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: "meta-ti@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] matrix-gui-browser: port from arago overlay X-BeenThere: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the meta-ti layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:39:33 -0000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 05:40:39PM -0500, Philip Balister wrote: > On 01/27/2012 03:57 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 03:50:41PM -0500, Philip Balister wrote: > >> On 01/27/2012 03:24 PM, William Mills wrote: > .... > > > >>> Chase: your right. I do not want to follow intel's example of layer per > >>> BSP. > >> > >> I build stuff for the USRP E100 (based on a gumstic overo). I use my own > >> later for BSP that provides kernel, u-boot, and image recipes. > >> > >> I still need a TI BSP layer for DSP stuff (we do not care about SGX, > >> although it is possible customers could). > >> > >> Do forget your customers using all this to ship products. > >> > > Philip, > > > > I don't understand what you are arguing here about or against? :) > > > > It won't change much for you, maybe just setup step a little. > > > > The proposal above is to split meta-ti and meta-arago repositories into > > multiple layers inside those repositories, like meta-oe already does. > > > > Your example above is a good one - having BSP, DSP and SGX in 3 separate > > layers allows you to enable first two w/o the need to get the second one > > parsed or used. > > > > Mostly I am saying keep your customers in mind, I very much like the > story of oe-core as the foundation, adding meta-oe to build images that > can be tested in qemu, using the TI BSP to support SOC specific features > and as an example to create my own BSP with my image definitions. > Finally I can use the Angstrom layer to provide some sanity to package > versions and as a source for binary feeds. I'm not sure where Arago fits > in this story. If you are worried about how Arago distribution fits in your use case, you shouldn't - we are definitely not trying to force our distribution on you, if you are happy with Angstrom. Moreover, that's the reason we propose to split meta-arago repository to separate apps from distro/TISDK configs, in case you want to use those apps with your own distro. > It would be really nice to get all this sorted out so we can clearly > explain this to other users of TI products and OE users. Hence the heated discussion of today :) -- Denys