From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sanddollar.geekisp.com (sanddollar.geekisp.com [216.168.135.167]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60EE8E0027F for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:54:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 24124 invoked by uid 1003); 17 Sep 2012 20:54:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.16.24.82?) (philip@opensdr.com@157.22.28.10) by mail.geekisp.com with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 17 Sep 2012 20:54:19 -0000 Message-ID: <50578DF9.1030904@balister.org> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:54:17 -0700 From: Philip Balister User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120828 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Enrico References: <20120914064306.GC26968@edge> <7D46E86EC0A8354091174257B2FED101591F5F33@DLEE12.ent.ti.com> In-Reply-To: Cc: "meta-ti@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: RFC: 2 possible workarounds for recipes-misc dependency on Angstrom X-BeenThere: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-ti layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 20:54:22 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 09/17/2012 01:36 PM, Enrico wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Maupin, Chase wrote: >> So really I think the question is do we have an agreement on "meta-beagle" or whatever it should be called, a timeline for it to be created and the recipes moved? Let's make meta-ti be the foundation BSP that we can all build on top of and nothing more or less. > > Sorry to jump into the discussion but...am i the only one that thinks > that having meta-beagle, meta-panda, meta-whateverTIboard is crazy? Whether or not Beagle is a TI board .... It seems like the broader issue (and one I am falling over at the moment) is that we want some image recipes in BSP's. The images have different layer dependencies. So we have a set of small images (such as board bring up and test images) that depend only on oe-core, and more complex images that depend on other layers. We can always mask the more complex images for the case where we want to only build against oe-core, but this is not the most convenient from a user point of view. It seems like we need a way for an image to specify the layers it requires and if those layers are not present, the recipe will not build, but will not break parsing either. Philip > > Enrico > _______________________________________________ > meta-ti mailing list > meta-ti@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-ti > >