On 3/30/12 2:33 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
Op 30 mrt. 2012, om 12:26 heeft Mark Hatle het volgende geschreven:
On 3/30/12 1:44 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
Hi,
RP said I should raise this on the yocto lists, so here it is:
The Angstrom core team would like to move angstrom under the yocto banner so
we can formally claim to be 'yocto'.
For it to be on the yocto project web site, it just need to have the layers hosted on the
git.yoctoproject.org. But there is no "yocto".. It's the Yocto Project, Poky,
or specific git repositories. There is no reason we can't have an angstrom repository.
It could be in a similar format to the Poky repository (everything combined for a single
download), or it could be a layer [or layers] that sit on top of Poky.
Why on top of poky? I do not want poky, nor do my customers, oe-core is what
we need and want. This proposal to move angstrom under yocto is targeted at
eliminating 'poky' from the stack while still being able to say 'yocto'.
Poky is a repository made up of bitbake + oe-core + meta-yocto, as well as a
distribution definition (in meta-yocto). I assume angstrom has it's own
distribution definition.
So my question is why NOT on top of Poky (the repository, not distribution
definition)?
We both know that saying it is 'yocto' is wrong and misleading, but that's
what users are asking for and yocto advocates seem to push. Just watch the ELC
videos for yocto related presentations, 'yocto' and 'poky' are used
interchangeably in most of them.
A 'reference' should be just that, a reference, not a mandated part.
It's hard to call something Yocto Project based unless it used something from
the Yocto Project. meta-yocto being on of those components.
There is enough confusion about yocto vs poky vs.. It's slowly being reconciled
and defined.. but it's a slow process for all of us.
--Mark
regards,
Koen
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
