On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 2:26 PM Stefan Agner <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2019-07-26 10:37, Yu, Mingli wrote: > > On 2019年07月25日 21:58, Khem Raj wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 6:42 AM Bruce Ashfield <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 3:05 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> From: Mingli Yu <[email protected]> > >>> > >>> This doesn't make any sense to "import from meta-overc". meta-overc, > >>> was never the authoritative upstream for ostree. That layer has to > >>> carry a specific version to meet the requirements of some of the > >>> container libraries, etc, that it requires. > >>> > >>> You need to have a look at the latest ostree, the various layers that > >>> are currently maintaining it, and pick the right version if you want > >>> to consolidate things here. I'm very doubtful that the right choice is > >>> the one from meta-overc. > >> > >> Yes agreed and this version fails on musl e.g. > > > > Make sense, please ignore this patch. > > What layers are you considering? > > We use OSTree integration of meta-updater and would welcome having a > common upstream implementation which works for everyone: > > https://github.com/advancedtelematic/meta-updater >
My current one is here: https://github.com/akiernan/meta-ostree-core/tree/master/recipes-ostree/ostree Which started off in life from the Intel IoT refkit. And the sidebranch folks have one here: https://github.com/sidebranch/meta-ostree/tree/sumo/recipes-ostree/ostree Getting just a common ostree recipe in meta-oe(?) would be good. -- Alex Kiernan -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
