meta-poky/conf: bblayers.conf.sample: move meta-yocto repos out of oe-core

Since the Poky repository will stop being updated (in favor of
bitbake-setup), the meta-poky and meta-yocto-bsp are no longer part
of ##OEROOT## by default when cloning the OE-Core and meta-yocto
repositories separately.

As a consequence the current bblayers.conf.sample file will not work
unless a user takes the extra steps of moving meta-poky and
meta-yocto-bsp out of meta-yocto and move it in openembedded-core.

Instead, make the assumption that meta-yocto has been cloned next to
openembedded-core with its default name ("meta-yocto") and update the
paths accordingly. This layout is the one provided by bitbake-setup.

Signed-off-by: Antonin Godard <antonin.godard@bootlin.com>
---
I'm also in the process of creating a document in yocto-docs that
describes how to build the Poky reference distro without bitbake-setup,
and that uses this file to setup layers. So this layout will also be
reflected in the documentation.
---
 meta-poky/conf/templates/default/bblayers.conf.sample | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)


---
base-commit: fe65e142d0d9ba0e51ff9175ffa82e902f982a20
change-id: 20251028-update-bblayers-sample-8b46ca3e8a55

Best regards,
--  
Antonin Godard <antonin.godard@bootlin.com>

On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 at 11:50, Antonin Godard via
lists.yoctoproject.org
<antonin.godard=bootlin.com@lists.yoctoproject.org> wrote:
> I'm also in the process of creating a document in yocto-docs that
> describes how to build the Poky reference distro without bitbake-setup,
> and that uses this file to setup layers. So this layout will also be
> reflected in the documentation.

I assume this will be presented as the 'backup/historical option',
after the bitbake-setup flow, which will be the primary choice?

>  BBLAYERS ?= " \
>    ##OEROOT##/meta \
> -  ##OEROOT##/meta-poky \
> -  ##OEROOT##/meta-yocto-bsp \
> +  ##OEROOT##/../meta-yocto/meta-poky \
> +  ##OEROOT##/../meta-yocto/meta-yocto-bsp \

There is a complication here. Integrated poky repository is not
deprecated (yet), a lot of people are using it (still), and when it's
assembled with combo-layer, then this file needs to be reverted to how
it was. I'm not sure if this is easily doable, but without that tweak,
this patch cannot go in, until integrated poky repo is truly obsoleted
and is no longer receiving new commits.

I suspect everything would have to be done in lockstep, and at the same time:
- obsolete poky repo
- merge this tweak
- merge documentation changes that explain how to assemble poky
without cloning the poky repo.

Alex

On Tue Oct 28, 2025 at 12:49 PM CET, Alexander Kanavin via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 at 11:50, Antonin Godard via
> lists.yoctoproject.org
> <antonin.godard=bootlin.com@lists.yoctoproject.org> wrote:
>> I'm also in the process of creating a document in yocto-docs that
>> describes how to build the Poky reference distro without bitbake-setup,
>> and that uses this file to setup layers. So this layout will also be
>> reflected in the documentation.
>
> I assume this will be presented as the 'backup/historical option',
> after the bitbake-setup flow, which will be the primary choice?

Yes

>>  BBLAYERS ?= " \
>>    ##OEROOT##/meta \
>> -  ##OEROOT##/meta-poky \
>> -  ##OEROOT##/meta-yocto-bsp \
>> +  ##OEROOT##/../meta-yocto/meta-poky \
>> +  ##OEROOT##/../meta-yocto/meta-yocto-bsp \
>
> There is a complication here. Integrated poky repository is not
> deprecated (yet), a lot of people are using it (still), and when it's
> assembled with combo-layer, then this file needs to be reverted to how
> it was. I'm not sure if this is easily doable, but without that tweak,
> this patch cannot go in, until integrated poky repo is truly obsoleted
> and is no longer receiving new commits.
>
> I suspect everything would have to be done in lockstep, and at the same time:
> - obsolete poky repo
> - merge this tweak
> - merge documentation changes that explain how to assemble poky
> without cloning the poky repo.

Thanks for the feedback.

I haven't tested this, but maybe in the meantime we can have a temporary
template to set this up? Something like:

templates
├── default
│   ├── bblayers.conf.sample
│   ├── conf-notes.txt
│   ├── conf-summary.txt
│   ├── local.conf.sample
│   ├── local.conf.sample.extended
│   └── site.conf.sample
└── no-poky-repo
    ├── bblayers.conf.sample
    ├── conf-notes.txt -> ../default/conf-notes.txt
    ├── conf-summary.txt -> ../default/conf-summary.txt
    ├── local.conf.sample -> ../default/local.conf.sample
    ├── local.conf.sample.extended -> ../default/local.conf.sample.extended
    └── site.conf.sample -> ../default/site.conf.sample

With the only difference in no-poky-repo being the layers layout, compared to
the default one.

Then later we remove this, and the docs can be updated easily.

The point is that the sooner we have the documentation for either bitbake-setup
or manual poky setup, the sooner we can send a docs link to people asking how to
switch to the new setup (one way or the other).

Antonin

On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 at 13:19, Antonin Godard <antonin.godard@bootlin.com> wrote:
> I haven't tested this, but maybe in the meantime we can have a temporary
> template to set this up? Something like:
>
> templates
> ├── default
> │   ├── bblayers.conf.sample
> │   ├── conf-notes.txt
> │   ├── conf-summary.txt
> │   ├── local.conf.sample
> │   ├── local.conf.sample.extended
> │   └── site.conf.sample
> └── no-poky-repo
>     ├── bblayers.conf.sample
>     ├── conf-notes.txt -> ../default/conf-notes.txt
>     ├── conf-summary.txt -> ../default/conf-summary.txt
>     ├── local.conf.sample -> ../default/local.conf.sample
>     ├── local.conf.sample.extended -> ../default/local.conf.sample.extended
>     └── site.conf.sample -> ../default/site.conf.sample
>
> With the only difference in no-poky-repo being the layers layout, compared to
> the default one.

Yes, I'll be ok with this. Don't know about RP or others :)

Alex

As all blockers for this patch have been resolved, and the docs have
been updated to assume dis-integrated repos:

https://git.yoctoproject.org/yocto-docs/commit/?id=0ddb5f4be84a97a66cc92c3c68c820af5223e108

this patch needs to be taken into testing and integrated into
meta-yocto, otherwise the docs are giving instructions that don't work
with current meta-yocto master.

Alex

On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 at 11:50, Antonin Godard via
lists.yoctoproject.org
<antonin.godard=bootlin.com@lists.yoctoproject.org> wrote:
>
> Since the Poky repository will stop being updated (in favor of
> bitbake-setup), the meta-poky and meta-yocto-bsp are no longer part
> of ##OEROOT## by default when cloning the OE-Core and meta-yocto
> repositories separately.
>
> As a consequence the current bblayers.conf.sample file will not work
> unless a user takes the extra steps of moving meta-poky and
> meta-yocto-bsp out of meta-yocto and move it in openembedded-core.
>
> Instead, make the assumption that meta-yocto has been cloned next to
> openembedded-core with its default name ("meta-yocto") and update the
> paths accordingly. This layout is the one provided by bitbake-setup.
>
> Signed-off-by: Antonin Godard <antonin.godard@bootlin.com>
> ---
> I'm also in the process of creating a document in yocto-docs that
> describes how to build the Poky reference distro without bitbake-setup,
> and that uses this file to setup layers. So this layout will also be
> reflected in the documentation.
> ---
>  meta-poky/conf/templates/default/bblayers.conf.sample | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/meta-poky/conf/templates/default/bblayers.conf.sample b/meta-poky/conf/templates/default/bblayers.conf.sample
> index 8b1cbdf..d34b552 100644
> --- a/meta-poky/conf/templates/default/bblayers.conf.sample
> +++ b/meta-poky/conf/templates/default/bblayers.conf.sample
> @@ -7,6 +7,6 @@ BBFILES ?= ""
>
>  BBLAYERS ?= " \
>    ##OEROOT##/meta \
> -  ##OEROOT##/meta-poky \
> -  ##OEROOT##/meta-yocto-bsp \
> +  ##OEROOT##/../meta-yocto/meta-poky \
> +  ##OEROOT##/../meta-yocto/meta-yocto-bsp \
>    "
>
> ---
> base-commit: fe65e142d0d9ba0e51ff9175ffa82e902f982a20
> change-id: 20251028-update-bblayers-sample-8b46ca3e8a55
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Antonin Godard <antonin.godard@bootlin.com>
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> View/Reply Online (#13774): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/poky/message/13774
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/115991155/1686489
> Group Owner: poky+owner@lists.yoctoproject.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/poky/unsub [alex.kanavin@gmail.com]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>

On Tue, 2025-11-18 at 11:37 +0100, Alexander Kanavin via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
> As all blockers for this patch have been resolved, and the docs have
> been updated to assume dis-integrated repos:
> 
> https://git.yoctoproject.org/yocto-docs/commit/?id=0ddb5f4be84a97a66cc92c3c68c820af5223e108
> 
> this patch needs to be taken into testing and integrated into
> meta-yocto, otherwise the docs are giving instructions that don't work
> with current meta-yocto master.

I can merge this but it feels a little wrong.

Perhaps we just delete the template data out of meta-yocto and update
the docs to tell users to use add-layer and then change the DISTRO?

Cheers,

Richard

On Tue, 18 Nov 2025 at 12:48, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I can merge this but it feels a little wrong.
>
> Perhaps we just delete the template data out of meta-yocto and update
> the docs to tell users to use add-layer and then change the DISTRO?

Yes! oe-core and poky templates are basically duplicating each other
(needs to be confirmed nothing would be lost though), so that would be
nicely addressed.

Alex

Hi,

On Tue Nov 18, 2025 at 12:54 PM CET, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2025 at 12:48, Richard Purdie
> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> I can merge this but it feels a little wrong.
>>
>> Perhaps we just delete the template data out of meta-yocto and update
>> the docs to tell users to use add-layer and then change the DISTRO?

No problem updating the docs to this on my side!

> Yes! oe-core and poky templates are basically duplicating each other
> (needs to be confirmed nothing would be lost though), so that would be
> nicely addressed.

I quickly checked, this is the current diff between the two templates:
https://0x0.st/Kffy.diff

Other than the obvious consequences shown in the diff, I could also identify
that PACKAGE_CLASSES becomes IPK as local.conf takes precedence over poky.conf.
Maybe oecore's template should not set this variable (IPK would be taken from
defaultsetup.conf).

Oecore's conf-summary.txt would also be sort of wrong even though that's ok I
guess.

Maybe there's more consequences, I haven't checked thoroughly/tried to build.

Antonin

On Tue, 18 Nov 2025 at 13:18, Antonin Godard <antonin.godard@bootlin.com> wrote:
> > Yes! oe-core and poky templates are basically duplicating each other
> > (needs to be confirmed nothing would be lost though), so that would be
> > nicely addressed.
>
> I quickly checked, this is the current diff between the two templates:
> https://0x0.st/Kffy.diff
>
> Other than the obvious consequences shown in the diff, I could also identify
> that PACKAGE_CLASSES becomes IPK as local.conf takes precedence over poky.conf.
> Maybe oecore's template should not set this variable (IPK would be taken from
> defaultsetup.conf).
>
> Oecore's conf-summary.txt would also be sort of wrong even though that's ok I
> guess.
>
> Maybe there's more consequences, I haven't checked thoroughly/tried to build.

I've just sent the patch that removes the poky template to the poky
list. On the call it was more or less agreed that this will happen (or
not :) in the next development cycle, and for now RP will take the
simple path tweak that you did. Meanwhile, the full poky template
removal can be tested on the autobuilder and maybe discussed.

Alex