Op 30 mrt. 2012, om 13:18 heeft Mark Hatle het volgende geschreven: > 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)?
1) It's downstream, I want to use upstream (oe-core, bitbake) 2) meta-yocto is *absolutely* unwanted, the meta-ti layer angstrom uses has much, much better support for the beagleboard. 3) It's downstream 4) The combo repo makes it harder to contribute things back upstream 5) It's downstream I know I can change bblayers.conf to remove any unwanted layers, but what's the point of using that combo repo if I do that? It means that angstrom developers have to spend more time explaining that yes, it's a single git repo, but no, you can't send patches against it. >> 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. So you are saying that meta-yocto is an absolute requirement for anything that wants to use 'yocto' in its messaging? > 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. Hence this proposal. _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
