Re: [RFC] turning conf/machine into a set of bblayers

[Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02-11-10 08:02, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> 2010/10/21 Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Recipes/linux is a mess and recipes/u-boot is as well. It would be a
>> nice topic for OEDEM to see if we discuss switching to a poky BSP model.
>> It would boil down to:
>>
>> 1 base bblayer with shared files:
>> * conf/machine/include
>> * recipes/linux/*.inc
>>
>> 1 bblayer per machine or SOC_FAMILY containing:
>> * machine.conf
>> * first and second stage bootloaders
>> * kernel
>>
>> So, what are peoples thoughts on this? I haven't thought this through
>> myself, so feel free to point out any show stoppers.
>> I do not want this to turn into a "splitting the metadata" discussion,
>> while I'm all for that, it really is a seperate effort and discussion.
>> But any bblayer style split would benefit from OE being a collection of
>> git submodules instead of a monolithic tree[1].
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Koen
>>
>> [1] Provided git submodules stop sucking so hard in future git versions
> 
> Replying on the original message on purpose.
> 
> Is the discussion concluded?
> How do we proceed with this? Should we have a vote? escalate to TSC?
> postpone until after the dec 1 release? already do something in a
> branch?

I have an experimental beagleboard layer, but I want to spend a bit more
time using it before I come up with an RFC for it.

You have have a look at it at
http://gitorious.org/angstrom/angstrom-layers/trees/master/BSP/beagleboard
but I want to stress that it currently is a quick hack that doesn't
exploit bblayers fully yet.

RP did show me a neat trick to overlay files without copying the
complete metadata:

http://gitorious.org/angstrom/angstrom-layers/commit/9890faee0eb861bdfd995910090126a8fe83be90.patch

So I would encourage people to try creating their own machine layers to
get a feel for it so the discussion will be based on actual experience
instead of handwaving :)

I do fear that pulling things into seperate layers too much will make it
harder to propagate fixes...

regards,

Koen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFM0HihMkyGM64RGpERAtlXAKCFK7WmZFTQACKJiegOSKx+panfcQCeJpq0
Iotf629VoDn0Tb48DkbyHkw=
=ot/l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----