On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Daiane Angolini <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Ann Thornton > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I am thinking of packagegroups as a way to make life easier. Graphics in >> particular is complicated, with some things working in one place and not >> another. Graphics packagegroups can handle a lot of that so a common image >> recipe can easily work in multiple environments and new recipes can be >> created more easily without having to know every detail. Having different >> levels allows an easy way to choose how much to include in a particular >> image. Packagegroups are not specific to BSP or SDK or whatever. They can >> be used wherever desired. > > I agree. > > That's why I think we should NOT have packagroups inside the BSP > metalayer, but in a different layer instead. > > In a different layer we can have as much as possible/whishable, with > as much as possible purposes, colors, sizes. > > Well, at least for graphics. I'm still trying to convince myself for > the other possible BSP packagegroups, but It's very hard to get an > argument for it.
If a graphic element is not working we have a dependency problem; packagegroup would be a band-aid, not a solution. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 -- _______________________________________________ meta-freescale mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
