From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from comal.ext.ti.com (comal.ext.ti.com [198.47.26.152]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1854DE0072A for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:11:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from dlep26.itg.ti.com ([157.170.170.121]) by comal.ext.ti.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id q0RKBK7T013476; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:11:20 -0600 Received: from DFLE70.ent.ti.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dlep26.itg.ti.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0RKBKu3005053; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:11:20 -0600 (CST) Received: from dlelxv22.itg.ti.com (172.17.1.197) by dfle70.ent.ti.com (128.247.5.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:11:20 -0600 Received: from gtwmills.gt.design.ti.com (gtwmills.gt.design.ti.com [158.218.100.52]) by dlelxv22.itg.ti.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0RKBJvC019995; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:11:19 -0600 Message-ID: <4F2304E7.7070809@ti.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:11:19 -0500 From: William Mills User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Maupin, Chase" References: <1327603585-5599-1-git-send-email-Chase.Maupin@ti.com> <4F21D735.5000303@ti.com> <27324814-C581-4BD9-92DF-68FC5CB4CECF@dominion.thruhere.net> <7D46E86EC0A8354091174257B2FED1010BF9BA72@DLEE12.ent.ti.com> <4F22E41B.8070708@ti.com> <7D46E86EC0A8354091174257B2FED1010BF9D77A@DLEE12.ent.ti.com> In-Reply-To: <7D46E86EC0A8354091174257B2FED1010BF9D77A@DLEE12.ent.ti.com> 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 20:11:21 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 01/27/2012 02:46 PM, Maupin, Chase wrote: > I guess we have a difference of opinion on how we see meta-arago. I > don’t separate that layer into distro and non-distro. I was really > planning on meta-arago being all the stuff related to the arago/SDK > distribution. Meta-ti is for TI packages that can be used by other > distros. That being said I'm OK with meta-ti being split into a BSP > layer and everthing else, but I don't know exactly what that buys us. > Does it particularly hurt someone that pulls in meta-ti to have access > to matrix if they don't use it? I pull in things from meta-oe or > oe-core that I don’t "need" but they are there anyway. Do you know that everything you are putting in meta-ti today only depends on oe-core? I don't think you do as we are not testing that today. Yes, in the old days a recipie collection had tons of stuff that would be present but just fail if you actually tried to use it. The point of layers was to clean that up.