On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 6:21 PM, McClintock Matthew-B29882 <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Luo Zhenhua-B19537 > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello Otavio and all, >> >> The FSL Yocto layers reorg proposal is attached, can you please take a look? >> Any comment and suggestion is welcome and appreciated. >> > > 1) Don't cross post to internal and external mailing lists. > > 2) I still don't really see the point in renaming from meta-fsl-ppc -> > meta-fsl-qoriq as well as meta-fsl-arm to meta-fsl-imx. But, I wonder > what others think about this. It seems like unneeded changes that will > just cause confusion. Why not just put vybird in meta-fsl-arm?
I support this idea and it'd make users' life much easier. > 3) I think we should delay the creation of some of these layers until > we really have packages that are duplicated between two layers (e.g. > meta-layerscape can wait until we have a recipe that is needed for > both ARM and PPC and is not upstream in another layer) Personally I think it won't happen often as usually it'll not be a BSP package that will fit in this set so it'll end in meta-virtualization or meta-networking eventually. > 4) I think we need some more info about the "unifed" layer. I don't > think it needs to exist yet, but maybe others would like to see it. > Personally, I think it can be created automatically much like poky is > now. As I said, I fear it adding more confusing than solving. It might making users wonder which layer he/she will use and don't know exactly the difference between the merged layer and the individual ones. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: [email protected] http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br _______________________________________________ meta-freescale mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
