Op 30 mrt. 2012, om 17:28 heeft Darren Hart het volgende geschreven: > > > On 03/30/2012 05:08 PM, Koen Kooi wrote: >> >> Op 30 mrt. 2012, om 16:52 heeft Darren Hart het volgende geschreven: >> >> [snip] >> >>> On 03/30/2012 02:11 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >>>> >>>> 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'll take a couple careful steps into this arena to offer just one >>> more possible criteria. >>> >>> One of the touted goals/advantages/benefits of using the Yocto >>> Project is to work with a vetted set of sources that are known to >>> all work together, having had some level of QA performed. This is >>> something the poky repository accomplishes by bringing specifc >>> versions of bitbake and oe-core together (along with some other >>> tooling). At some point, this gets rolled up into a release of the >>> Yocto Project: 0.9, 1.1, and soon 1.2. It's common for someone to >>> refer to these release points as the base for their BSP. >>> >>> It therefor seems reasonable to me for a distribution definition >>> (which is how I think of Angstrom - but feel free to correct me >>> Koen) to make a statement like "This release of Angstrom builds >>> with the Yocto Project X.Y release." >> >> Yes, but see below >> >>> I believe this is the sort of language that most outside >>> developers would immediately understand and associate with being >>> part of the Yocto Project. >> >> What does a 'yocto project release' actually mean? Right now it looks >> more like a 'poky (the distro) release'. Since angstrom builds on >> oe-core and bitbake directly the statement (in the current situation) >> would be more like: >> > > /me hands koen a real MUA that wraps at < 80 characters... > and wraps his mail for him... > > (everyone else gets a pass, but you? ;-) > > I see the "poky" distro definition as only a part of the poky > repository, the naming is unfortunate, but I think we can all see past > that for the purposes of this discussion. This is part of meta-yocto > which will at some point be it's own repository. > > So I don't agree with the assertion that it looks more like a "poky the > distro release".
But it is the only component of the YP that gets released as part of the YP release, no? >> "This release of angstrom builds on oe-core 2012.1, bitbake >> 1.something.x, which matches the YP 1.x release". > > > OK. Donning my "Yeah but I have a XYZ and things to get done" hat, I > think people will respond more positively to: > > "Download the 1.2 Yocto Project release, add meta-angstrom to your > bblayers.conf, and build $IMAGE_TARGET" > > than they will to > > Download bitbake X.Y, Angstrom X.Y, OE Core X.Y, etc. instructions on > setting up the layers, the local.conf, etc etc. > > I believe there are some other details the poky repository helps out > with (someone more familiar with working with the individual components > would have to enumerate these, I honestly don't know what they all are). > > And yes, there are the BSP layers to add to each of these scenarios, but > that effects each equally. > > All that environment setup is something that can make or break the > initial experience. I believe lots of users appreciate not having to > pull all the pieces together themselves. (especially those that don't > even know what they're not having to do!) And that's why angstrom (currently!) only supports setup using the angstrom setup-scripts. That contains all the logic that is needed to get the right versions. It also contains pretty much all known layers, so there's a high likelihood that users will never need to open bblayers.conf (either manually or using a script). > If we move more things under the YP banner and convince subprojects >> to adopt the same schedule, we could make statements like: >> >> "The Yocto Project 1.x release consist of the following modules: >> >> * bitbake 1.x * oe-core 2012.x * poky $DOTT_character * eglibc 2.17 * >> pseudo 1.2 * angstrom 2012.04 * meta-xilinx 6.5 ... etc" >> > > With the exception of eglibc (I wouldn't want to have to list every > package from oe-core and the layers!) this doesn't seem out of line to me. I was listing YP projects, not recipes/packages. I guess my point about a YP release needing to contain more than one yocto subproject got lost :( >> I think that would make it fit better with the "umbrella project" >> idea. "consists" might be a bad choice of words, I blame the >> unlimited coffee refills at the diner across the street :) > > > And I blame any perceived snarkiness on the migraine and the 4 different > medications the doc's got me on to try and patch me up to fly on Monday ;-) I hope you get well soon! _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
