[meta-ti] [PATCH 1/3] matrix-gui-browser: port from arago overlay

[Maupin, Chase]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mills, William
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 11:51 AM
> To: Maupin, Chase
> Cc: Koen Kooi; meta-ti at yoctoproject.org
> Subject: Re: [meta-ti] [PATCH 1/3] matrix-gui-browser: port from
> arago overlay
> 
> On 01/27/2012 08:50 AM, Maupin, Chase wrote:
> 
>  > but I definitely don’t think matrix belongs in meta-arago
> 
> Why, justify.  Yes matrix needs to be different than the distro
> definition on arago but As you point out below the only people
> using
> Matrix are Arago and Koen in Angstrom.  I think this comes down to
> not
> wanting the word "arago" occurring in the Angstrom layer stack.
> 
> meta-ti should be about using TI chips.  Matrix and other demo
> programs
> we put together for our demo distro are not essential to using TI
> chips.

I guess we have a difference of opinion on how we see meta-arago.  I don’t separate that layer into distro and non-distro.  I was really planning on meta-arago being all the stuff related to the arago/SDK distribution.  Meta-ti is for TI packages that can be used by other distros.  That being said I'm OK with meta-ti being split into a BSP layer and everthing else, but I don't know exactly what that buys us.  Does it particularly hurt someone that pulls in meta-ti to have access to matrix if they don't use it?  I pull in things from meta-oe or oe-core that I don’t "need" but they are there anyway.

> 
> >
> > 1. As of now matrix is only maintained by TI and used by TI (and
> Koen to some extent) on our products.  So I would put this in a
> layer that we maintain because it would seem strange to me to have
> to go through another set of maintainers to update the SRCREV of
> the package we are developing.  Particularly if no one is using it.
> > 2. If people wanted matrix they could still include our layer to
> get it.  If we see that happening a lot a there is a request from a
> group of people to have this then we could push it lower, but if we
> are the only ones using it and who care about it then I don't see
> the reason to move this lower in the layer stack.
> >