On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Paul Eggleton <[email protected]> wrote: > 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,
Are any of those projects public? I'd be interested to see how that's being done. > 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
