On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Darren Hart <dvh...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On 03/30/2012 06:37 PM, Koen Kooi wrote: >> >> Op 30 mrt. 2012, om 18:21 heeft Darren Hart het volgende geschreven: >>> >>> So that brings us back to what does it mean for Angstrom to be a Yocto >>> Project project I guess? >>> >>> In my very humble opinion (really), it still makes sense to build >>> Angstrom with the components in the poky repository as part of a Yocto >>> Project release. I understand that there is resistance to this idea. >> >> Yes, it would force angstrom developers to ignore upstream and work on >> downstream projects > > That's an understandable concern. If I were a casual observer, I would > expect every project identifying itself with the Yocto Project to > interoperate with eachother at each release point. I would imagine that > Angstrom developers would continue their feature development with the > upstreams of bitbake and oe-core. As a Yocto Project release occurs (or > shortly after, as is the case with many BSPs) I would then expect (again > as a casual observer) that some effort went into ensuring some version > of Angstrom works with the release of the poky repository. > > You've mentioned preferring to do this with set versions of bitbake and > oe-core. Do oe-core and bitbake maintain stable branches? I didn't think > they did. This makes it difficult to stabilize a release, and poky > serves this purpose well in my opinion. I'm going to stop going down > this path though as the policies surrounding this aren't clear to me and > would be better coming from others (RP or Chris for example). > > Without this, people working with "The Yocto Project" are back to using > different versions of bitbake and oe-core depending on which > distribution or BSP they are building, and we ultimately end up where we > started with unsolvable dependency chains and people passing around > fixup patches for this or that issue. > >> or as I will label them from now on: forks. >> >>> Angstrom has been independent from poky and the Yocto Project in the >>> past and I can understand not wanting to lose some of that >>> individuality. However, too much individuality breeds chaos and >>> fragmentation. >> >> I will draw a line in the sand here and say: Forcing people to ignore >> upstream (oe-core/bitbake) and force a fork down their throats >> breeds chaos and fragmentation. > > > Don't be so dramatic Koen :-) Everybody involved knows the bitbake and > oe-core in the poky repository are not forks, at least not in the sense > you portray here. They are snapshots with the same maintainer (or subset > of maintainers). They are no more "forks" than the stable Linux kernels > maintained by Greg KH are forks of Linus' kernel. I won't presume to
Not to be terribly pendatic or difficult here, but technically, the comparison you make here doesn't ring true. bitbake in poky *still* has changes that never went into the upstream repository. -- Christopher Larson _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
