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

[William Mills]

On 01/27/2012 03:21 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 08:17:42PM +0000, Maupin, Chase wrote:
>>> -----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.
> I don't think that was Bill's message. It was simplicity. BSP only layer, no
> supplemental apps, if not absolutely required.
>
> Your example with lmbench is not correct - BSP layer should be simple enough
> to be used with OE-Core alone to produce a console rootfs image with nothing
> but busybox.
>
> How about splitting meta-ti into:
> * BSP only
> * SGX graphics
> * DSP tools
> * WiFi etc.
>
> And then splitting meta-arago into:
> * Arago distro for TI SDKs
> * Supplemental apps
>

Need to get my "YES!" in here before everyone barfs all over the proposal :)

Chase: your right.  I do not want to follow intel's example of layer per 
BSP.