On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 03:18:06PM -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
> 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)?
What does being on top of poky buy the end user? ${some_tool} will be
grabbing the repositories so it's not easier to grab bitbake + oe-core
as one. It adds a barrier to end user to developer conversion since
we'll have a lot of "OK, thanks for your contribution but next time
please base against oe-core directly not poky". Not to speak for Denys
or Chase but for Arago, why would we want to have the poky sample distro
around on top of our distro?
> >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 bitbake and oe-core don't count because they're external projects?
> 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.
Right. But we should probably reiterate that one of the goals was to be
able to say that components X/Y/Z make up a release. And while a merged
repo makes sense in terms of a reference platform (and since git
submodules, repo, etc, etc, each have their own problems) it wasn't the
intent to say you must use this merged repo.
--
Tom
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
