[oe] Splitting meta-oe?

[Otavio Salvador]

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 09:10:25PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 9:07 PM, Otavio Salvador
>> <otavio at ossystems.com.br> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Richard Purdie
>> > <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >> I could combo-layer pieces of meta-oe into poky but I'd imagine that
>> >> would create more problems than it would solve too and given the
>> >> general dislike of combo-layer, I think ultimately better layer tooling
>> >> would be a better answer and more acceptable to everyone.
>> >
>> > Poky creates more problems then it solves
>>
>> ... send was too soon ...
>>
>> Poky creates more problems then it solves.
>>
>>  - it causes confusion
>>  - it avoids the urgency in adopting a setup script
>>  - it does not use the layers as we market as being a good thing
>>
>> So adding more things to it, just makes it worse.
>>
>> The setup script is more urgent to be discussed then splitting meta-oe.
>
> I agree that a setup script of some sort (off the top of my head,
> something that takes layer-names as input, checks vs a list,
> fetches/clones, creates a wrapper around bitbake-layers to always add
> them) should be a high priority.  I don't have a problem telling my
> customers to clone meta-openembedded and then use the layers that are
> needed in that specific project.  But it's painful to have a shell
> for-loop in the docs we provide so they can setup a build.

I think we ought to start a thread about the tooling, but let's focus
on meta-oe split here.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750