Great ideas. 
So I take that meta-gumstix should depend on meta-gumstix-bsp? (ie can't build an image with meta-gumstix without meta-gumstix-bsp)

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Steve Sakoman <> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Ash Charles <> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Steve Sakoman <> 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?

Yes, just things that are machine specific  -- boot loaders, kernel,
things like custom alsa-state.

Basically anything that would produce an overo package (vs an "all" or
"armv7a-vfp-neon" package).

> 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'?

No strong opinion on that!