On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 10:20 -0400, 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.)
Commercial OS support usually involves some of your own policy so meta-yocto is interesting as an example to them but they'd probably only use it as inspiration to write their own. That was always expected and meta-yocto is extremely thin deliberately. Having said that, what meta-yocto was doing was wrong, it wasn't intentional, the implications not fully realised and is hopefully now fixed with the split :). Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
