On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 15:12 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 08:10 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > Is the "build single distro for different machines" scenario that I > > described part of the Yocto Compliance 2.0? Should there be tests for > > it? > > Right now its not
Okay, so the goal is a bit less ambitious than I had thought. I wonder whether that's useful, because at least the problems Ostro and AGL (at least as far as I understood it from lurking on their mailing list) had only happened when trying to combine multiple BSP layers *and* actually using the different machines in the same distro. > but I'd consider it. At least I'd find that useful - not sure about others ;-} > The question is can we write an > easy generic test for it, It's a bit more complicated than the existing tests, but I think it is doable. > and also clearly phrase the criteria in the > list of compliance questions with a binary yes/no answer? Does the BSP layer only modify machine-specific packages and only when the MACHINE(s) defined by the BSP layer are selected? [yes/no] The "only when" part is covered by the existing tests (because they keep MACHINE constant). The missing part is comparing different MACHINE sstamps. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. -- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
