From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sanddollar.geekisp.com ([216.168.135.167]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Rq5PY-00018Y-Rn for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:09:25 +0100 Received: (qmail 10322 invoked by uid 1003); 25 Jan 2012 16:00:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.104?) (philip@opensdr.com@96.240.160.175) by mail.geekisp.com with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 25 Jan 2012 16:00:54 -0000 Message-ID: <4F202735.8040405@balister.org> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:00:53 -0500 From: Philip Balister User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Fedora/3.1.16-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Eggleton References: <1592899.mTy93uB97i@helios> <4F20130D.2010208@balister.org> <1908796.glHMrEiIxU@helios> In-Reply-To: <1908796.glHMrEiIxU@helios> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Cc: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: Splitting meta-oe X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:09:25 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 01/25/2012 09:47 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote: > On Wednesday 25 January 2012 09:34:53 Philip Balister wrote: >> On 01/25/2012 07:48 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote: >>> I think what most people want when they enable meta-oe in their layer >>> configuration is #1, and it's probably OK to get #2 along with it. They do >>> not however expect versions of toolchains, eglibc or other fairly >>> fundamental bits and pieces that might cause their build to fail when >>> everything worked fine just building with OE-Core (#4). Equally I expect >>> there will be some people who want just #3 and nothing else. >> >> My understanding is the OE-Core toolchains lack the Linaro patches which >> a extremely useful for people using armv7. So dropping toolchains from >> meta-oe would be a really bad thing for a large portion of the user base. > > I was suggesting moving these toolchains to a separate layer where those who > don't need them aren't tripping over them. Adding such a layer to your > configuration is more or less trivial, and once done you would not notice any > difference. We should try and have a face to face meeting with OE developers at ELC in a few weeks to talk about some of these issues. Philip