On Thu, 2 May 2019, Scott Rifenbark wrote:

Great, thanks!

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:21 AM akuster <akuster@...> wrote:


On 5/2/19 10:45 AM, Scott Rifenbark wrote:
The term "Container Layer" was put in the ref-manual by me to describe a
"meta-*" layer that had other "meta-*" layers (see
https://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/2.7/ref-manual/ref-manual.html#term-container-layer
and the term "Container Layer").  Maybe this was never a good term?  I don't
know.  Nobody has said anything about that term for many releases. 

The problem Robert points out needs to be fixed in the BSP manual as "meta-intel" is
not longer qualifying by my definition.  I can fix that. 

Is "Container Layer" ok as I have defined it?

in those terms above, yes its fine.

the more i think about it, the more i'm nervous about the phrase
"container layer", as it suggests a "layer" of some kind in the
context of OE. the one distinction i think worth making is that a "BSP
layer" is a layer expressly designed to support identified target
systems (eg., meta-xilinx-bsp), while a non-BSP layer simply packages
functionality (recipes, classes) -- a good example is
meta-virtualization.

in either case, the trivial property of an OE layer is something
that can be specified in a bblayers.conf file. so i'm not sure *how*
you would describe, for example, meta-openembedded.

i'm sure i'm overthinking this.

rday

--

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================