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

[Maupin, Chase]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mills, William
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 2:11 PM
> 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 02:46 PM, Maupin, Chase wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Do you know that everything you are putting in meta-ti today only
> depends on oe-core?  I don't think you do as we are not testing
> that
> today.  Yes, in the old days a recipie collection had tons of stuff
> that
> would be present but just fail if you actually tried to use it.
> The
> point of layers was to clean that up.

Not sure what your comment about only needing oe-core is.  For example I use lmbench but I don’t see that in oe-core.  I get that from meta-oe.  I can agree to spliting meta-ti into two layers, a HW layer for our devices and a layer containing all of the TI recipes.

But if we wanted to match the meta-intel layer way would you also propose making a layer per device?  I personally find that more confusing.