On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 12:27:07 PM NZDT Andre McCurdy wrote: > 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.
The main one I am aware of being active in recent times is Isar: https://github.com/ilbers/isar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHHOxrtYBMc There have been others mentioned on the bitbake mailing list over time but I don't recall any others that were public. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
