On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 at 01:25, Kent Dorfman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/27/19, Alexander Kanavin <[email protected]> wrote: > > To me it seems that the SDK is the wrong kind of delivery to begin with > (as > > it is basically a frozen target image configuration without the ability > to > > customize the entire system build; Yocto SDKs are meant for application > > development). What you need is a hardware BSP meta-layer with ability to > > integrate the layer into your private build configurations. > > > > If you can get the OEM to agree to this, we can discuss acceptance > criteria > > for such a layer. > > > > Alex > > I think that was their intention from the start. they wanted to only > give their customer the ability to produce user level apps, without > modifying the system, but for our enterprise that is unrealistic. > > They do provide a meta-vendor layer, but the stuff in it points to > private git repos and stuff like systemd startup scripts, so if it > ends up not in the cache then the build will fail unless the build is > done from within their corporate intranet. > > So no, they would definitely NOT meet any real acceptance criteria. > There are ways to adapt such a proprietary layer. If the intranet location is set with a bitbake variable, then you can adjust the variable to point to *your* intranet, and mirror all the needed pieces. But I can imagine that you first need to discuss with your management what the problem is, then explain to the OEM what you, the customer, expect from them, and somehow codify it in a signed contract kind of thing. Alex
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#47831): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/47831 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/69288358/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
