On 12-09-05 10:20 AM, William Mills wrote:
On 09/04/2012 07:23 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
On 09/04/2012 01:25 PM, William Mills wrote:
Darren: Is it true you can't get @ the Intel BSP's w/o also getting the
poky distro defs? That does seem to mixing things a bit. (I am not
claiming meta-ti is clean yet but I want to understand the Intel
examples.)
It isn't something we test as part of the QA that we perform. I mostly
expect people building meta-intel to be building with meta-yocto
(although I wouldn't take a hard line on requiring it). That said, I
removed meta-yocto from a meta-intel/meta-fri2 build and removed
DISTRO=poky from my local.conf and successfully built and booted a
core-image-minimal build on an FRI2 this afternoon without any changes.
Thanks! My confidence is restored.
As long as including meta-yocto does not interfere with other BSPs or
distros etc then there should be no harm in your assumption.
I would be interested to know what Mentor Graphics and Wind River do on
their products. Do they include meta-yocto? (YP is not all about
comercial OS support but I know these orginatations have done the due
diligence on layer compatibility for a non-poky distro.)
Layering flexibility is important, so we work largely on oe-core
vs meta-yocto. That being said, there are elements in meta-yocto that
are of interest, so it can be included in used, but with layers that
get the ordering and priority correct to override/preserve appropriately.
But sorting out exactly what we are talking about in this thread, would
make using meta-yocto (or whatever the elements of it become), that much
easier to do.
Cheers,
Bruce
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
