On 09.09.2017 18:33, Erwin Rol wrote:
Exactly my problem, Yocto is becoming the Ubuntu of embedded Linux, and > like Ubuntu not everything is good about it.
apropos Ubuntu: just had a ugly problem w/ my trusty notebook, which ate up my precious time: dbus didn't come up (just because a dumb file - /etc/machine-id - was missing), and therefore nothing else (except plain console) worked. oh, and some of their kernel versions suddenly miss wifi drivers, etc, etc ...
But vendors like Intel, > Xilinx, TI, etc. don't even know ptxdist exists, they all only offer>
some Yocto layers. chip vendors usually aren't the right parties for bsp's anyways, leave that to board vendors, or the folks here :p
And the whole bitbake machinery is really slow. > > Over all I don't think bitbake is much slower than ptxdist, when>
building from 0 to 100%. I'm talking about the engine itself. It always took me several minutes of metadata processing before it even starts jobs. Especially while hacking on some code, it's (IMHO) a big con if it metadata stuff sometimes takes even longer than the actual build.
But when you want to do edit->compile->update iterations the "startup" time for bitbake seems to be a killer. With ptxdist I just call "./ptxdist compile bla" and I have no noticeable delay compared to native compiling. That is something I extensively use with ptxdist, and for Yocto that doesn't work (at least I don't know how) :-/
Exactly. I need incremental builds almost all the day, so yocto would just slow me down by magnitudes. At that point I really wonder whether there's some really good pro argument that might compensate that big con. --mtx _______________________________________________ ptxdist mailing list ptxdist@pengutronix.de
