>From: yocto-boun...@yoctoproject.org [mailto:yocto- >boun...@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Richard Purdie >Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 2:11 PM > >The criteria I see for being part of the Yocto Project are: > >a) Sharing the project's objectives (e.g. making embedded Liunx > development easier) >b) Willing to be part of the Yocto Project's governance structure >c) Bringing something new/beneficial to the Yocto Project (often with > mutual benefit) >d) Have some kind of sustainable resource plan
I would add: e) there should be interoperability with the other parts of the YP. Part of the benefit we're trying to create is that if someone invests in YP for their device, they should get benefit from the whole thing. If a board manufacturer creates a BSP for YP v1.2, there should be no doubt whatsoever that it will work with that system. Can anyone assure me that such a BSP would work under Angstrom? Or I develop a layer for an app on Angstrom. Do I know for sure that it will for sure work on MEL, which has YP as its upstream? See where I'm going with this? Finally, Dr. Kooi has stated that he doesn't see YP as an upstream. In fact, many of the OSVs (like Wind River, Mentor Graphics and now ENEA - yeah!) absolutely want to use YP as their upstream. So I'm hoping we could change the definition of YP/Poky/Angstrom so Angstrom could us Poky as its upstream ... no? Too hard? Anyway, if we can't get to this level of interoperability, then adding Angstrom to the Yocto project may add too much confusion. Dave _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
