[meta-ti] Fix image recipes in meta-ti

[Koen Kooi]

Op 2 sep. 2012, om 21:47 heeft "Maupin, Chase" <chase.maupin at ti.com> het volgende geschreven:

> I agree with Denys and Franklin here.  Meta-ti should be a straight BSP layer so we should remove distro dependencies.  This is the same as moving netbase changes to meta-arago.

I'm not sure if what you mean by this example. The current netbase patch is the second try to get it into meta-ti, will there be a 3rd try? 

>  There may be things in meta-ti that don't belong there and they should be moved to the appropriate location

And I completely agree.

> I understand that you have been using meta-ti and leading the way here, but that does not mean that we can't work together in this layer going forward.  You may have noticed that most of the TI SDK stuff has been going into meta-arago since that is where it belongs.  We are trying hard not to put things in meta-ti that will force others to use the arago distribution, I wouldask that we make sure the same applies for Angstrom as well, or any other distribution for that matter.

So show me where it is being forced. Really. There are no requires, only includes. So if you mean by 'forcing' that a few warnings may scroll by than, yes, it's being 'forced'. If you mean that the only way to use meta-ti is by using angstrom, than no, it's not being 'forced'. So instead of spreading more FUD, can you please use more precise language for the problem at hand? As I said above, I agree that those images don't belong in meta-ti. But funnily enough, that was not my decision. I was told to keep them there. By TI.

> I'm confused where the objection is to moving these recipes that rely on the Angstrom layer into the actual Angstrom layer?

For one, it was TI that objected to it. I don't care if some part of TI is now changing course on that. I care if some other part of TI is going to change course again in a few weeks. Just make a clear decision and stick with it instead of not doing a thing and rekindling the same old discussion every other month.
For two: They don't belong in the angstrom layer either, they are way too machine/SoC specific for that.

>  Let's discuss that topic and how we can structure this layer to meet everyone's needs.  That would likely be more productive and save us all frustration.

Like I said, I have no problem at all removing all beagle, bone and panda related things from meta-ti. In a previous incarnation of this discussion I offered to do that and was told by TI to keep everything in, both by SDO and AMBU people. So I'll offer it again now. So if you don't like that proposal, make a counter proposal.
Being an external contributor for the past 6 months has given me a good sense of what works and what doesn't work and what the level of (non)support the community can expect from TI. To be clear: Denys is doing an awesome job managing meta-ti, someone send him some cookies.

You work for TI, you get to dictate what happens in meta-ti, so make a proposal. I'm only a small part of the community, I have no illusions of being able to influence the direction of meta-ti. I can however look at your proposal and give my opinion on it.