On 2012-09-14 05:29, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 11:26 +0100, Tomas Frydrych wrote:
On 14/09/12 09:08, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
3. Inheriting (i.e. inherit systemd) classes from another layer, such as
meta-systemd. This behavior breaks parsing and requires BBMASK-ing those
problematic recipes. Although, it requires an "application" layer and not a
"distribution" one, it's quite bad nonetheless, as it breaks parsing. High
priority.
I am not sure about this one; it is reasonable / necessary for a bsp
layer to provide an -initd / -systemd packages (e.g., the pvr drivers
need this, the gstreamer-ti package needs this), and as long as there is
no systemd.bbclass in oe-core, I suspect the only answer is to split the
bsp layer into -bsp, -bsp-initd and --bsp-systemd. I am not sure whether
such endless proliferation of layers is a particularly good solution?
I don't think PVR modules having a dependency on some particular init
system is a good thing.
What we need is a good core init system architecture and then these
pieces can plug into that in whatever way is appropriate.
I appreciate we're not there yet however I think the overall goal of
separating hardware support from "policy" is a good one. There are a few
pain points we need to work through but if it was easy, we'd already
have done it :)
systemd support in OE-Core is being deferred to 1.4 as I want it done
well and would be too rushed given where we're at in the schedule now.
When that does happen, I hope that it will still be possible to have
a distribution which uses initd. Will that be the case, or do we all
have to follow down the systemd yellow brick road (which I personally
am not in favour of)?
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas | Consulting for the
MLB Associates | Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
meta-ti mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-ti
