From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from arroyo.ext.ti.com (arroyo.ext.ti.com [192.94.94.40]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35F3AE016A3 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:42:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dflxv15.itg.ti.com ([128.247.5.124]) by arroyo.ext.ti.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id r98JgIDM003307; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 14:42:18 -0500 Received: from DLEE71.ent.ti.com (dlee71.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.114]) by dflxv15.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r98JgIfR031952; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 14:42:18 -0500 Received: from dflp33.itg.ti.com (10.64.6.16) by DLEE71.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.114) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.342.3; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 14:42:17 -0500 Received: from localhost (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by dflp33.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r98JgHvb021079; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 14:42:17 -0500 Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:42:17 -0400 From: Denys Dmytriyenko To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o?= Henrique Freitas Message-ID: <20131008194216.GA12722@edge> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org Subject: (No subject) X-BeenThere: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-ti layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 19:42:22 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 11:19:33AM -0300, Joćo Henrique Freitas wrote: > Hello, > > I am new to TI boards. > > Could I use meta-ti (master) and yocto (1.5, dora) ? Any issue combining > these two versions? Since dora release is not out yet, I haven't branched off meta-ti yet. So, meta-ti/master should still work with oe-core/dora for now. > My target platform is am3517-evm. The only problem I could see is that am3517-evm is an old platform that uses 2.6.37 kernel and may not be fully compatible with modern user-space. There were some syscall requirements in latest udev/systemd that are not compatible with that old kernel... -- Denys