* what OE/YP layers should be considered "supported"?
@ 2021-05-04 21:03 Robert P. J. Day
2021-05-05 0:12 ` [yocto] " Armin Kuster
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Robert P. J. Day @ 2021-05-04 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yocto discussion list
related to something that richard purdie mentioned on the OE list,
if one wanted to do a YP-wide "cleanup" of some indeterminate form,
what are the layers that would be considered mandatory to cover in
such a cleanup?
no-brainers would, of course, include:
* oe-core
* meta-openembedded
beyond that, what else? i would think:
* meta-virtualization
* meta-java
* meta-security
* ... more? ...
and there are the vendor layers:
* meta-intel
* meta-freescale
* meta-qcom
* meta-boundary
where can one stop?
rday
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [yocto] what OE/YP layers should be considered "supported"?
2021-05-04 21:03 what OE/YP layers should be considered "supported"? Robert P. J. Day
@ 2021-05-05 0:12 ` Armin Kuster
2021-05-05 8:23 ` Robert P. J. Day
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Armin Kuster @ 2021-05-05 0:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert P. J. Day, Yocto discussion list
Helllo Robert,
On 5/4/21 2:03 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> related to something that richard purdie mentioned on the OE list,
> if one wanted to do a YP-wide "cleanup" of some indeterminate form,
> what are the layers that would be considered mandatory to cover in
> such a cleanup?
I don't have an context in the email you are referring to. Can you
include it please?
Supported will mean different things to different people.
-Armin
> no-brainers would, of course, include:
>
> * oe-core
> * meta-openembedded
>
> beyond that, what else? i would think:
>
> * meta-virtualization
> * meta-java
> * meta-security
> * ... more? ...
>
> and there are the vendor layers:
>
> * meta-intel
> * meta-freescale
> * meta-qcom
> * meta-boundary
>
> where can one stop?
>
> rday
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [yocto] what OE/YP layers should be considered "supported"?
2021-05-05 0:12 ` [yocto] " Armin Kuster
@ 2021-05-05 8:23 ` Robert P. J. Day
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Robert P. J. Day @ 2021-05-05 8:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: akuster808; +Cc: Yocto discussion list
On Tue, 4 May 2021, akuster808 wrote:
> Helllo Robert,
>
> On 5/4/21 2:03 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > related to something that richard purdie mentioned on the OE list,
> > if one wanted to do a YP-wide "cleanup" of some indeterminate form,
> > what are the layers that would be considered mandatory to cover in
> > such a cleanup?
> I don't have an context in the email you are referring to. Can you
> include it please? Supported will mean different things to different
> people.
>
> -Armin
granted, that Q was a bit vague ... based on a suggestion of
richard's, i was going to do an "audit" of OE/YP layers to see the
effect of doing a particular minor cleanup, but it's not clear the
requirement for wide-sweepingness that would represent a sufficient
audit.
would that necessarily cover every single layer identified at
layers.openembedded.org? that seems a bit onerous. so is there some
moderately vague definition of what constitutes a minimally
representative collection of layers?
rday
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-05-05 8:23 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-05-04 21:03 what OE/YP layers should be considered "supported"? Robert P. J. Day
2021-05-05 0:12 ` [yocto] " Armin Kuster
2021-05-05 8:23 ` Robert P. J. Day
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.