On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 6:10 AM, Otavio Salvador
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 3:16 AM, Luo Zhenhua-B19537
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the comments.
>>
>> I did some update according to the feedback and removed some bits of
>> internal activity. Please review and comment.
>
> From the update, I think it is much more inline with I believe it'd be
> the best way of doing it. Personally I found two things which could be
> further discussed:
>
> * meta-fsl-layerscale:
>
> As Vybrid it could have the BSP part inside meta-fsl-arm and
> meta-fsl-ppc; I think the not BSP parts could go to
> meta-fsl-networking or similar and keep the BSP part unified. This
> would make easier for users and also make it easier for vendors to
> make customized BSPs using this as a common base.
I think layerscape and vybrid recipes should go in their own
SDK/distro layers (what does not belong in meta-fsl-{ppc,arm})
> * meta-freescale-sdk:
>
> It is not clear from the description what it would have inside. If
> it are going to have poky and all other layers the name is misleading.
> freescale-sdk or freescale-yocto-sdk would be better. Could you
> clarify it?
I like the idea of meta-freescale-yocto-sdk since we are based on that.
-M
_______________________________________________
meta-freescale mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
