I just thought I'd chime in on this discussion as someone who is outside of both groups. It's been difficult to explain to our teams internally the whole Yocto Project vs. Angstrom-core terminology, and since everyone here is familiar with Linux and distros, we decided to put it in those terms. Note that not coming from these groups, there's a good chance we've been explaining it all wrong, in which case, feel free to correct and clarify and I'd be happy to change our internal explanations.
We see bitbake/oe-core as Debian based Linux, Poky and Angstrom as distros (like Ubuntu and Debian), and the Yocto Project as something like Canonical. The Yocto Project regularly contributes to bitbake and oe-core, but also maintains layers and products on top of that, like meta-yocto and the Eclipse ADT plugin, all of which constitutes the Poky distro. The Yocto Project then has regular releases of stable snapshots, much like you have Ubuntu 10.04, 10.10, etc. That said, I personally feel (this is not necessarily representative of my co-workers or company) that Angstrom, as a distro, should be allowed to use the Yocto Project name and have the Yocto Project post information about Angstrom on their Projects page, if Angstrom can stick to a regular release schedule that meets the same quality requirements that Poky does. I think that would ensure that the Yocto Project trademark maintains a quality image while helping users whose projects align better with the Angstrom distro than with Poky know that there are other oe-core distros out there. Daniel Lazzari Jr. Firmware Engineer, LeapFrog dlazz...@leapfrog.com _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
