From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-bk0-f48.google.com (mail-bk0-f48.google.com [209.85.214.48]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 623F4E01412 for ; Fri, 4 May 2012 05:53:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bkcjf20 with SMTP id jf20so3323935bkc.35 for ; Fri, 04 May 2012 05:53:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=mKeerT+4TFLNEbvUMM+S0+D9VkQ1Ht2QSZLcafgUV8U=; b=pfokexn6y7Gr+0aEns3nsi6AMnTbEj/dxDmHClFroLZ9jEvT5CfP75pGmaVGOGGZ4F yxyvMAXLG1xtLoQOfaVf2eatSs7x8WMEgM0QanSPwVaKzXES7o1veXgEAJeWUDCY9yeC 9VcQXyUUhPb6DALbbTGU5ZIYId4AtyzDx9dZeWVVtkHf6GKU3ZWtHYpvY2+uUcyx59q5 Yi4+kPOvtG6d1u3y3w5+C1DyyxnmXXSAJd7YB8FPrFl9KaF36x36c3OtIf4q2pVxkGgo rQyhix2Rm429SeaaS7g35pmnvLbSJFvuYJ+MHNNy7vHLFZLdSxWqotU2DPcamfVuDUCO SN5g== Received: by 10.204.133.220 with SMTP id g28mr2083312bkt.54.1336135996842; Fri, 04 May 2012 05:53:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fensuse.internal.dresearch-fe.de (pd95cb174.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [217.92.177.116]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s20sm16860642bks.2.2012.05.04.05.53.15 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 04 May 2012 05:53:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FA3D13A.2060007@dresearch-fe.de> Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 14:53:14 +0200 From: Steffen Sledz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120427 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Koen Kooi , meta-ti@yoctoproject.org References: <4F910E4F.9000800@dresearch-fe.de> <20120420132050.GA3783@denix.org> <4F9168F4.50306@dresearch-fe.de> <4F9794F0.20706@dresearch-fe.de> <17B574FF-1E81-4D65-8C70-439CCC24974D@dominion.thruhere.net> <4F97AC74.9070900@dresearch-fe.de> In-Reply-To: <4F97AC74.9070900@dresearch-fe.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm/8sAtZAso3SwQBeo6Ih7d1MeMDIn1HuNsZ8IW8U0X+CKYxSBaZX6m4HwI/fcpns0wEkBS Subject: Re: meta-ti layer confusion X-BeenThere: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the meta-ti layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 12:53:18 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 25.04.2012 09:49, Steffen Sledz wrote: > On 25.04.2012 08:19, Koen Kooi wrote: >> >> Op 25 apr. 2012, om 08:08 heeft Steffen Sledz het volgende geschreven: >> >>> On 20.04.2012 15:47, Steffen Sledz wrote: >>>> On 20.04.2012 15:20, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 09:20:47AM +0200, Steffen Sledz wrote: >>>>>> Our company is working on a new TI DM814x based hardware currently. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's a really hard job, because the TI linux support is not really "optimal". But that's not the primary cause for my message. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] lists two TI BSP layers [2],[3] each one claiming to be "The official OpenEmbedded/Yocto BSP layer for Texas Instruments platforms.". >>>>>> >>>>>> A look into them shows that they are not identically. At the moment they differ in two commits ([3] is ahead of [2]). In the last days these differences where much bigger. >>>>>> >>>>>> So what is the intention for these two "offical" layers? >>>>>> >>>>>> Which one should we use? And why? >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW: Is anyone else out there working on a TI DM814x/DM816x hardware? >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Steffen >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] >>>>>> [2] >>>>>> [3] >>>>> >>>>> They are the same. Or more appropriately, there is just one official meta-ti >>>>> layer, it's just mirrored in several places. The one on yoctoproject.org[2] is >>>>> considered the official mirror and that's what you should use. If you are >>>>> subscribed to this list, you should have seen Koen posting 2 patches for >>>>> review yesterday, which he has staged to his working copy on github[3] - >>>>> that's the difference in 2 commits. They shouldn't have been pushed to the >>>>> master branch though, until they are accepted... >>>> >>>> Why are they both listed in [1]? >>> >>> Any objections if i remove [3] from the LayerIndex? >> >> Yes > > Which objections are these? > > Why are they both *needed* in the LayerIndex? > >>> After your comments i think that this one is just a kind of a staging area. >> >> And you're thinking wrong > > So please explain this to us. > > What we've seen in the last days is that there were commits in [3] which were not accepted at that moment. In the moment they got accepted they made their way to [2]. I would call this a staging area. Ping! -- DResearch Fahrzeugelektronik GmbH Otto-Schmirgal-Str. 3, 10319 Berlin, Germany Tel: +49 30 515932-237 mailto:sledz@dresearch-fe.de Fax: +49 30 515932-299 Geschäftsführer: Dr. Michael Weber, Werner Mögle; Amtsgericht Berlin Charlottenburg; HRB 130120 B; Ust.-IDNr. DE273952058