On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 15:18 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: >> On 3/30/12 2:33 PM, Koen Kooi wrote: >> > >> > Op 30 mrt. 2012, om 12:26 heeft Mark Hatle het volgende geschreven: >> > >> >> On 3/30/12 1:44 PM, Koen Kooi wrote: >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> RP said I should raise this on the yocto lists, so here it is: >> >>> >> >>> The Angstrom core team would like to move angstrom under the yocto >> >>> banner so >> >>> we can formally claim to be 'yocto'. > > In the interests of clarity, as Tracey will tell you there is no > "Yocto" (which is an SI prefix), only the "Yocto Project" :). I know > some of us have bad habits but since we're trying to ensure we're all > consistent, this is worth highlighting. > >> >> For it to be on the yocto project web site, it just need to have >> the layers hosted on the git.yoctoproject.org. But there is no >> "yocto".. It's the Yocto Project, Poky, or specific git repositories. >> There is no reason we can't have an angstrom repository. It could be >> in a similar format to the Poky repository (everything combined for a >> single download), or it could be a layer [or layers] that sit on top >> of Poky. >> > >> > Why on top of poky? I do not want poky, nor do my customers, oe-core is >> > what >> > we need and want. This proposal to move angstrom under yocto is targeted at >> > eliminating 'poky' from the stack while still being able to say 'yocto'. >> >> Poky is a repository made up of bitbake + oe-core + meta-yocto, as well as a >> distribution definition (in meta-yocto). I assume angstrom has it's own >> distribution definition. >> >> So my question is why NOT on top of Poky (the repository, not distribution >> definition)? > > FWIW I don't think it has to be "on top of Poky". > > Basically the question is whether you'd include the meta-yocto layer or > not. I know that doesn't have its own repository yet (but that's purely > a time thing). I have no strong feelings either way about the inclusion > of that layer. Its purposefully not got that much in it (one distro > definition and some hardware/BSP addons). > > Also, Angstrom has a different repository format in the way the user > fetches and interacts with layers. I don't think Yocto mandates any > requirement in that area, or that it needs to.
I think the repository format used for poky in yocto project could also be confusing things. Since it does not clone openembedded-core or bitbake from upstream locations but maintains a copy of its own. even though they are ditto copies of upstream it still has logical separation that can be source of confusion. So if there was a meta-poky that defined the distro policies and another integration layer that sources openembedded-core and bitbake meta-poky and other layers would make it much clearer. As such OE-Core is distroless as we all know and can be built standalone and poky uses most of defaults so meta-poky could be a thin layer on top right now I think poky combines distro policy layer and integration layer into one which could also be source of confusion. I think creating distinct layers for these two will clear up the air quite a bit. Whether you want to include angstrom as an alternative distro layer is Yocto project and angstrom community to decide I think this would make the distinctions very clear. -Khem _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
