Hi Everyone, Trying to design my own layer I used the example of meta-virtualization layer configuration to try to include a file depending on a DISTRO_FEATURES value. After several tests, I discovere

Thanks a lot, I will give this a look but enforcing PREFERRED_VERSION in a bbclass does not really seem to be something standard. Does someone knows meta-virtualization tries to enforce versions on py

If virtualization is set in local.conf (which is the standard I would say), it will not be set when the layer.conf is parsed. This could be solve by doing the test in the class directly (using a pytho

In Zeus definitely not, whatever I put as error in the .inc file everything goes well. On master that works (adding an error in one inc file creates an error if virtualization is activated in local.co

Your patch does not apply on Zeus. For internal reasons I cannot push one myself right now but if you wait the end of this week I can handle this an push a patch to fix this on the mailing list. Bertr

do_deploy is using the files installed during do_install and it must be executed after it but before do_build. This is fixing SSTATE behaviour which had previously an empty scene in some cases. Change

Any chance somebody could check and ack on this ? While there, it would make sense to also push this in zeus branch. — Bertrand Marquis IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments

Ok I will re-push my patch once the changes in Xen are merged then. Cheers Bertrand

A big grep in poky for “addtask deploy” is showing that most of the time this is added with: addtask deploy before do_build after do_instal The problem in doing this after do_populate_sysroot is that

Thanks for the explanations. I will wait for your patch to be merged to test this again. Bertrand

Hi, I had this problem working on some other BSPs to support Xen with meta-virtualization (you can check this in meta-arm[1]). I would think the best way to handle this case is to use dynamic layers a

Sorry I forgot to remove the disclaimer. Bertrand

This is something we plan to fix in the next months and move some parts from meta-arm-autonomy to meta-virtualization. By curiosity, what are the 2 things you have in mind ? Cheers Bertrand

If someone is developing a BSP in his own layer and has some specific patches to make this BSP work with Xen and meta-virtualization, I would create a dynamic layer in his BSP Layer so that including

I fully agree with those. I would also think that introducing the idea of “xen dom0” vs “xen guest” could make sense. I also have some ideas for the xen recipe itself as current status does not allow

HI Could you give a sumup of what was changed in v2 ? That’s a big serie and reviewing it would be easier with some infos on what has been changed. Thanks Bertrand

Hi Christopher, Thanks, this is a very interesting serie which could define how boards specific support could be handled. I am not quite sure if the dynamic layer should be in meta-virtualization and

ok just wanted to make sure that was clear. That works for me :-) Bertrand

I tested it and it worked for me, including modifying the xen configuration. So you can add my: Reviewed-by: Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@...>

Gentle ping :-) Bertrand