On 03/02/2012 06:18 PM, Gary Thomas wrote:

On 2012-03-02 15:50, William Mills wrote:

On 03/02/2012 05:33 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2012, William Mills wrote:

... snip ...

Congratulations you are the first beta tester for the new README.txt
language :) (patched two days ago).

Denys: I suggest

change:

"Due to the above, it is now recommended to follow the instructions
at http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom"

to:

"When the other layer combinations are supported instructions will
be supplied here. Until that time please see the Angstrom setup
instructions below.

*** Angstrom w/ meta-ti Layer Stack setup: ***
Please follow the instructions at
http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom"

i might try something a bit different. given that angstrom is the
tested way to go, by all means, point that out and *strongly*
recommend that approach.

on the other hand, what is the current issue with the yocto/meta-ti
combo? is it *known* to be broken? or is it simply not sufficiently
tested? in cases like that, i see no problem in cautioning people
about it, but telling them that if they're feeling adventurous,
they're welcome to give it a shot but if it breaks, as they say, they
get to keep all the pieces.

don't discourage people from trying it, but make sure you give
proper instructions for how to use it, that's all. unless, as i said,
it's really and truly unusable.

We will update the README when it is merely in need of testing.
Today, we know there is code that does not work with GCC 4.6.
Today, we know there are features in the recipes that do not work w/o
Angstrom.

Can you elaborate on the above? I have been [I think] successfully using
poky+meta-ti
to support internal platform based on DM8148 and DM3730 - meta-ti is the
best choice
for a kernel "jumping off point" for these platforms. So far, I've only
had to make a scant few tweaks to get this combo to work, in particular:

If we can make some simple changes (or document workarounds) that enable bare bones support for poky/oe-core that does not break full support in Angstrom, I'm all for it. Even if we have to limit it to a subset of boards.

I'll try to give you a better answer Monday.