Re: Splitting meta-oe?

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1862 bytes --]

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:00:27AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 09:10:25PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 9:07 PM, Otavio Salvador
> >> <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Richard Purdie
> >> > <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> >> I could combo-layer pieces of meta-oe into poky but I'd imagine that
> >> >> would create more problems than it would solve too and given the
> >> >> general dislike of combo-layer, I think ultimately better layer tooling
> >> >> would be a better answer and more acceptable to everyone.
> >> >
> >> > Poky creates more problems then it solves
> >>
> >> ... send was too soon ...
> >>
> >> Poky creates more problems then it solves.
> >>
> >>  - it causes confusion
> >>  - it avoids the urgency in adopting a setup script
> >>  - it does not use the layers as we market as being a good thing
> >>
> >> So adding more things to it, just makes it worse.
> >>
> >> The setup script is more urgent to be discussed then splitting meta-oe.
> >
> > I agree that a setup script of some sort (off the top of my head,
> > something that takes layer-names as input, checks vs a list,
> > fetches/clones, creates a wrapper around bitbake-layers to always add
> > them) should be a high priority.  I don't have a problem telling my
> > customers to clone meta-openembedded and then use the layers that are
> > needed in that specific project.  But it's painful to have a shell
> > for-loop in the docs we provide so they can setup a build.
> 
> I think we ought to start a thread about the tooling, but let's focus
> on meta-oe split here.

Agreed.  And to be clear, I'm another vote against splitting meta-oe.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]