[meta-ti] building Yocto for Pandaboard

[Maupin, Chase]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Koen Kooi [mailto:koen at dominion.thruhere.net]
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 7:54 AM
> To: jfabernathy
> Cc: Maupin, Chase; meta-ti at yoctoproject.org
> Subject: Re: [meta-ti] building Yocto for Pandaboard
> 
> 
> Op 9 feb. 2012, om 14:11 heeft jfabernathy het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > On 02/09/2012 08:01 AM, Maupin, Chase wrote:
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: meta-ti-bounces at yoctoproject.org [mailto:meta-ti-
> >>> bounces at yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of James Abernathy
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 4:52 PM
> >>> To: Gary Thomas
> >>> Cc: meta-ti at yoctoproject.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [meta-ti] building Yocto for Pandaboard
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 8, 2012, at 5:34 PM, Gary Thomas wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2012-02-08 15:27, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >>>>> Op 8 feb. 2012, om 23:22 heeft Gary Thomas het volgende
> >>> geschreven:
> >>>>>> On 2012-02-08 15:18, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >>>>>>> Op 8 feb. 2012, om 23:11 heeft jfabernathy het volgende
> >>> geschreven:
> >>>>>>>> On 02/08/2012 05:05 PM, Gary Thomas wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 2012-02-08 14:58, jfabernathy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to build the pandaboard BSP for Yocto. I
> cloned
> >>> the meta-ti repository in the poky directory and tried to build
> >>> core-image-sato for both machine pandaboard and
> >>>>>>>>>> omap4430-panda. However, I immediately get an error
> because
> >>> bitbake is looking for recipes-images/angstrom/systemd-
> image.bb,
> >>> which is required in the ti-hw-bringup-image.bb image
> >>>>>>>>>> recipe.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> All I really included was the machine name change in
> >>> local.conf and added the meta-ti layer in bblayers.conf.
> >>>>>>>>>> Did I miss a step?
> >>>>>>>>> This was discussed last week.  Add this line to your
> >>> local.conf
> >>>>>>>>>  BBMASK = ".*/meta-ti/recipes-misc/"
> >>>>>>>>> This will skip some BeagleBoard/BeagleBone recipes that
> are
> >>> not
> >>>>>>>>> currently working in a Yocto tree.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks a bunch. That got it going.  The README said
> nothing
> >>>>>>> Stop spreading such lies!
> >>>>>> It's not a lie, just a perspective.
> >>>>> It *is* a lie, since the README is non-empty. Regardless of
> what
> >>> you want to do, the README does contain content.
> >>>> Sorry, I thought you were referring to my work-around to get
> this
> >>>> going in Yocto.  Obviously, he was looking for more info in
> the
> >>>> README than just how to use this layer with Angstrom and I
> agree
> >>>> that this "trick" probably does not belong in the README.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>> Wow!  Sorry I jumped into a mailing list I obviously don't
> >>> understand or belong in.  I apologize if I offended.  I did
> read
> >>> the README, but it didn't make a bit of sense to me because it
> >>> talked about angstrom, which I don't know anything about and
> >>> wondered what that had to do with yocto.  My current Yocto
> >>> knowledge is based on the meta-intel layer, which doesn't
> mention
> >>> angstrom.  It sounds like the hint/trick that Gary mentioned
> will
> >>> make bitbake build with just yocto, which is what I want.  My
> goal
> >>> is more of a proof of concept.  I'd like to prove if you could
> take
> >>> the same image recipe and move it from Pandaboard to Atom and
> vice
> >>> versa.  That way a developer could pick the hardware platform
> based
> >>> on the performance, features, and cost.  The software effort
> should
> >>> be minimal to move if the Yocto concept works as advertised.
> >> Jim, you are welcome here.  As was mentioned before there have
> been a lot of discussions about this layer.  One of the goals for
> the meta-ti layer will be to work with just oe-core and yocto and
> not require meta-angstrom.  We are moving that direction and the
> use case you are trying and your experiences with it are important.
> Thanks for taking the time to give this a shot.
> >>
> > Thanks, glad the proof of concept falls into the groups thinking
> as well.  I will monitor for progress on the use of just the Yocto
> Linux for this POC.
> 
> Yocto or Poky? Because if you want yocto, angstrom very much *is*
> yocto. If you want Poky, that's something different.

I believe it is fair to say that that we should be able to use meta-ti with only openembedded-core and also with openembedded-core + meta-yocto.  Basically if there is something in meta-ti that requires things in meta-angstrom then those should be moved to either meta-angstrom or meta-arago correct?



>