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

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 01:54:17PM -0700, Philip Balister wrote:
> 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.

That's the whole point of this prolonged discussion...


> 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.

Ah, that flexibility would have been nice in general, although it might be too 
easy to use it the wrong way or abuse.

-- 
Denys