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 _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
