On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 18:52 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > Even once we do that, we (as in YP) can't send out a clear message > about what we're testing and users will clone meta-oe and expect > everything to work. So right now I do have problems trying to get to > a point where YP can use meta-oe effectively.
We had the same issue in refkit: the bblayers.conf.sample enabled a large amount of layers, but the distro itself only needed and could test only a subset of the recipes in those layers. We solved this with supported-recipes.bbclass [1] and an explicit list of recipes that were considered part of the distro [2] and thus got tested. A "bitbake world" only builds those recipes. Users of the distro could enable additional recipes, but then knew that they were on their own regarding those. [1] https://github.com/intel/intel-iot-refkit/blob/master/meta-refkit-core/classes/supported-recipes.bbclass [2] https://github.com/intel/intel-iot-refkit/blob/master/meta-refkit/conf/distro/include/refkit-supported-recipes.txt Note that this mechanism also allowed us to support only a subset of, for example, OE-core: we settled on systemd as the only supported init system, so sysvinit wasn't listed as supported. This is something that cannot realistically be achieved by splitting up layers and/or repos containing layers. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
