On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Ash Charles <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:Yes, just things that are machine specific -- boot loaders, kernel,
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Steve Sakoman <email@example.com> wrote:
>> This is a good point, and I agree!
>> Perhaps it would be better for Gumstix to do 2 layers:
>> meta-gumstix-bsp: a "pure" bsp layer, machine related recipes/bbappends only
>> meta-gumstix: a layer for recreating the Gumstix provided images
>> That way folks who don't want the image related recipes can just use
>> the meta-gumstix-bsp layer.
> Yeah---this seems reasonable to me. I assume kernel and u-boot
> receipes still belong in a BSP?
things like custom alsa-state.
Basically anything that would produce an overo package (vs an "all" or
No strong opinion on that!
> For the proposed 'meta-gumstix' layer which would contain gumstix
> images and recipes we think are interesting, do we need a more
> descriptive name than 'meta-gumstix'?