Re: [PATCH 1/3] matrix-gui-browser: port from arago overlay

[Philip Balister <philip@balister.org>]

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.

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.

Philip