On Thu, 2013-05-30 at 10:49 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: > It has 413 recipes (and 2 bbappends). Of the 413, likely many of those > should > really be in one of the other meta-openembedded layers (or even other project > layers). But my customers are not willing to bring in 413 packages just for > '1' > package they might need out of the set. > > (Similarly, we don't just "bring in" meta-openembedded either.. we break out > the > layers so only the ones we're willing to support, and our customers need are > provided to them.) There is no such thing as an "unsupported" package when > you > are a commercial vendor.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "bring in" in this context or what the underlying rationale for your reluctance is. But some general comments: It's entirely possible to have a copy of meta-oe on hand and only include a subset of the recipes in the parse. You can do that either by adding the layer and then BBMASKing out everything you don't want, or by not adding the layer as such but just admit individual recipes by adding them to BBFILES specifically. Either of those approaches would avoid the risk of accidentally introducing dependencies on recipes from meta-oe without realising that this is what you are doing. Also, I think the toxicity of meta-oe nowadays is much less than it used to be (thanks mostly to excellent work by Paul in cleaning up the .bbappends and overlapping recipes) and, as far as I know, the act of including meta-oe in your layer list no longer leads to the sort of random changes to recipe versions and behaviour that you might have gotten burned by in the past. So if your previous experience is from some time ago then you might want to give it another try. p. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
