Op 30 mrt. 2012, om 16:49 heeft Tom Rini het volgende geschreven: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:06:04PM +0000, Stewart, David C wrote: > >> 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? > > Putting on my "me, myself and I" hat and apologizing for putting words > in a few peoples mouths, I think this speaks to the heart of the problem > Koen is trying to express.
Exactly! I said that *poky* is not an upstream, nothing about YP. > On a technical level, the goal has been > something (and I'm simplifying a bit here) to say that poky (the distro) > is an implementation of policy for oe-core. oe-core, bitbake and N > number of other layers (meta-intel, meta-fsl-ppc, meta-ti, meta-java, > meta-oe, meta-so-on-and-so-forth) will say that this is their metadata > for release X. Some of these layers (bitbake, oe-core, poky the distro) > are maintained by 'Yocto Project' folks like Richard. Others are > maintained by community folks (Koen, Eric B.) or other companies > (Denys). > > Now, you say "YP is an upstream". But "Yocto Project" is an upstream > for bitbake, and for openembedded-core and for poky (the distro) and a > lot of other stuff. However, meta-yocto (what got us going in this > direction) is only an upstream for poky (the distro), and Richard has > said it's a TODO list item to move poky (the distro) into a separate > repository and thus make meta-yocto ONLY a conglomeration of other > repositories. > > It's GOOD that companies want to work with upstream, and at some high > level "Yocto Project" is where that is, in so far as bitbake, > openembedded-core, etc, get a lot of time and energy and resources of > "Yocto Project" people. But these also get community resources too. > Koen for example DOES see "Yocto Project" as an upstream in that he > contributes to openembedded-core, etc, etc. Angstrom also sees "Yocto > Project" as an upstream for the same reasons. But on a technical level, > none of us would say it that way. Exactly. I said that *poky* is not an upstream. > And this is where the confusion emanates from I believe. You're saying > that Angstrom (the distro) should see poky (the distro) as it's > upstream. If I was a runner, I could make an analogy you would say "but > that's silly!" and I would say "exactly!" and we'd all be on the same > page. So can we pretend I did? > >> Anyway, if we can't get to this level of interoperability, then adding >> Angstrom >> to the Yocto project may add too much confusion. > > If someone makes a layer and it works with meta-yocto + > meta-SomeHWVendor and fails with meta-angstrom + openembedded-core + > bitbake + meta-SomeHWVendor (and you can replace meta-angstrom with > meta-arago or any other layer that provides distro policy) it's a bug, > not a feature, and not what anyone expects to happen today. Like meta-ti won't build with binutils newer than 2.20.x. We all agree that's a bug in meta-ti, not a bug in oe-core or poky (the distro). _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
