On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 09:10:25PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 9:07 PM, Otavio Salvador > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Richard Purdie > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I could combo-layer pieces of meta-oe into poky but I'd imagine that > >> would create more problems than it would solve too and given the > >> general dislike of combo-layer, I think ultimately better layer tooling > >> would be a better answer and more acceptable to everyone. > > > > Poky creates more problems then it solves > > ... send was too soon ... > > Poky creates more problems then it solves. > > - it causes confusion > - it avoids the urgency in adopting a setup script > - it does not use the layers as we market as being a good thing > > So adding more things to it, just makes it worse. > > The setup script is more urgent to be discussed then splitting meta-oe.
I agree that a setup script of some sort (off the top of my head, something that takes layer-names as input, checks vs a list, fetches/clones, creates a wrapper around bitbake-layers to always add them) should be a high priority. I don't have a problem telling my customers to clone meta-openembedded and then use the layers that are needed in that specific project. But it's painful to have a shell for-loop in the docs we provide so they can setup a build. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
