On Thu, 2 May 2019, Scott Rifenbark wrote:
> Great, thanks!
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:21 AM akuster <akus...@mvista.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 5/2/19 10:45 AM, Scott Rifenbark wrote:
> The term "Container Layer" was put in the ref-manual by me to describe a
> "meta-*" layer that had other "meta-*" layers (see
>
> https://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/2.7/ref-manual/ref-manual.html#term-container-layer
> and the term "Container Layer"). Maybe this was never a good term? I
> don't
> know. Nobody has said anything about that term for many releases.
>
> The problem Robert points out needs to be fixed in the BSP manual as
> "meta-intel" is
> not longer qualifying by my definition. I can fix that.
>
> Is "Container Layer" ok as I have defined it?
>
> in those terms above, yes its fine.
the more i think about it, the more i'm nervous about the phrase
"container layer", as it suggests a "layer" of some kind in the
context of OE. the one distinction i think worth making is that a "BSP
layer" is a layer expressly designed to support identified target
systems (eg., meta-xilinx-bsp), while a non-BSP layer simply packages
functionality (recipes, classes) -- a good example is
meta-virtualization.
in either case, the trivial property of an OE layer is something
that can be specified in a bblayers.conf file. so i'm not sure *how*
you would describe, for example, meta-openembedded.
i'm sure i'm overthinking this.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================--
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
