[meta-ti] RFC: 2 possible workarounds for recipes-misc dependency on Angstrom

[Philip Balister]

On 09/17/2012 01:36 PM, Enrico wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Maupin, Chase <chase.maupin at ti.com> wrote:
>> So really I think the question is do we have an agreement on "meta-beagle" or whatever it should be called, a timeline for it to be created and the recipes moved?  Let's make meta-ti be the foundation BSP that we can all build on top of and nothing more or less.
>
> Sorry to jump into the discussion but...am i the only one that thinks
> that having meta-beagle, meta-panda, meta-whateverTIboard is crazy?

Whether or not Beagle is a TI board ....

It seems like the broader issue (and one I am falling over at the 
moment) is that we want some image recipes in BSP's. The images have 
different layer dependencies.

So we have a set of small images (such as board bring up and test 
images) that depend only on oe-core, and more complex images that depend 
on other layers. We can always mask the more complex images for the case 
where we want to only build against oe-core, but this is not the most 
convenient from a user point of view.

It seems like we need a way for an image to specify the layers it 
requires and if those layers are not present, the recipe will not build, 
but will not break parsing either.

Philip

>
> Enrico
> _______________________________________________
> meta-ti mailing list
> meta-ti at yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-ti
>
>