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

[Enrico]

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko <denys at ti.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:36:20PM +0200, Enrico wrote:
>> Sorry to jump into the discussion but...am i the only one that thinks
>> that having meta-beagle, meta-panda, meta-whateverTIboard is crazy?
>
> Not to argue that it's better, but how is it different from meta-cedartrail,
> meta-crownbay, meta-emenlow, meta-sugarbay and all the other Intel boards?

I admit i know nothing about them and why they are organized like that.

But, in my experience, it's really useful to see what happens in
boards similar to what i'm using/developing for. For example thanks to
Koen beagle patches i learned about smartreflex and crashing dm3730,
or a patch coming from linux-omap to enable 720mhz on 3530, or a patch
to fix mmc timeout issues. (i know, pretty old examples!).

In other words the more i know about an arch, the better it is. And
it's easier to follow meta-ti instead of meta-beagle-that-is-not-ti,
meta-panda, meta-whatever, expecially when i have no (direct) reason
to use those meta layers.

But i maintain nothing in meta-ti so it's easy for me to see it in this way.

Enrico