On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Stewart, David C <david.c.stew...@intel.com> wrote: >>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?
Given that an OE priority has *always* been that distro, machine, and image are largely independent, orthogonal components, and generally speaking one can combine any combination of the three and have at least a good shot at functionality, I'd say that if such a BSP did not work under Angstrom, that'd be a bug that we'd all agree would need to be fixed. As far as I know, this priority and attribute of the system still exists. -- Christopher Larson _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
