On 05/30/2013 12:18 PM, Mark Hatle wrote: > On 5/30/13 11:13 AM, Phil Blundell wrote: >> 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: > > Support and testing.. if the recipe is there we have to support it, if > we don't ship it to our customers -- they are free to source it > themselves, but it's clear that we didn't test and don't support it. > > We provide it, customers expect us to support it. We're not willing to > support meta-oe due to the number of recipes in it. oe-core, > meta-yocto, meta-networking, meta-selinux, meta-webserver, and others we > do use, test and provide to our customer.
Does this mean we should look at splitting meta-oe into more layers? Or is this issue unique to Wind River? At some point, the layer dependencies get out of hand. Philip > >> 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 > > I agree, it's significantly better now. I do use meta-oe from time to > time on personal projects... > >> 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
