Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[William Mills <wmills@ti.com>]

On 03/02/2012 05:33 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012, William Mills wrote:
>
> ... snip ...
>
>> Congratulations you are the first beta tester for the new README.txt
>> language :) (patched two days ago).
>>
>> Denys: I suggest
>>
>> change:
>>
>> "Due to the above, it is now recommended to follow the instructions
>> at http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom"
>>
>> to:
>>
>> "When the other layer combinations are supported instructions will
>> be supplied here. Until that time please see the Angstrom setup
>> instructions below.
>>
>> *** Angstrom w/ meta-ti Layer Stack setup: ***
>> Please follow the instructions at
>> http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom"
>
>    i might try something a bit different.  given that angstrom is the
> tested way to go, by all means, point that out and *strongly*
> recommend that approach.
>
>    on the other hand, what is the current issue with the yocto/meta-ti
> combo?  is it *known* to be broken?  or is it simply not sufficiently
> tested?  in cases like that, i see no problem in cautioning people
> about it, but telling them that if they're feeling adventurous,
> they're welcome to give it a shot but if it breaks, as they say, they
> get to keep all the pieces.
>
>    don't discourage people from trying it, but make sure you give
> proper instructions for how to use it, that's all.  unless, as i said,
> it's really and truly unusable.

We will update the README when it is merely in need of testing.
Today, we know there is code that does not work with GCC 4.6.
Today, we know there are features in the recipes that do not work w/o 
Angstrom.

As soon as we remove the above for even one platform we will update the 
README to reflect an Alpha state for oc-core &| poky layer stack for 
that platform(s).