Re: yocto beagleboard.conf -- should it not go away?

[Tomas Frydrych <tf+lists.yocto@r-finger.com>]

Hi Bruce,

On 03/09/12 22:08, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> That being said, taking a step back, what are you trying to get out of
> meta-yocto in this scenario ? 

a) I am targeting multiple chips, including TI Omap and Intel Atom.
meta-yocto is a prerequisite for the various machines in meta-intel, so
I have to include meta-yocto if I want to build images for an Intel
chip. Nothing unusual here.

b) meta-yocto is the Poky distro layer; if you want to use Poky, then
you need meta-yocto.

> see above. I misspoke. I don't think there's an intent to make meta-yocto
> and meta-ti work together, but oe-core + meta-ti, that's the combo that
> makes sense.

See (b) above; you are not saying that Poky is only meant for Intel HW,
are you?

The basic problem with meta-yocto is that it combines BSP stuff
(meta-intel prerequisite, Atom & Beagle config) with distro stuff (Poky,
Yocto branding). That's convenient for doing QA on a limited set of HW,
but suboptimal for real use; BSP layers simply should not be dependent
on distro layers, it largely defeats the purpose of having layers.

Splitting out the minimal beagle config into a layer of its own would
improve things quite a bit.

Tomas