On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
I think we ought to start a thread about the tooling, but let's focus on meta-oe split here. -- 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 -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
