On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 8:16:06 AM NZDT Andre McCurdy wrote: > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Burton, Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > > The bitbake API isn't really stable and has a reasonable amount of change, > > so if you were to package it then there's a good chance it would be out of > > date within six months and people who wanted to use the latest oe-core > > release against the packaged bitbake would hit API version errors. The > > recommended usage is to bundle in some way bitbake and the metadata > > (combo-layer, submodules, repo, whatever). > > > > As such there are no tarballs. There are branches for each version and > > commits where the version is bumped, if you're really determined to > > package a snapshot. > > If there's no realistic hope of (or need for) using bitbake standalone > then maybe it's time to move bitbake into oe-core?
Well, there are folks out there using bitbake with their own (non-OE) metadata, and that is absolutely supported, so even in the absence of stable releases of BitBake that distros could pick up the separation does still have a purpose. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
