Hi On Fri, 2010-12-31 at 02:42 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
> There are a bunch of people who can commit to bitbake, some inactive, > some active in different areas with different priorities. I think mine > are clear above, I'd appreciate others to make their objectives clear so > everyone understand people's positions and what people plan and don't > plan to do. While I do not and cannot be considered a maintainer in any form, I do have a special use for BitBake. I use an (almost) upstream BitBake as part of the OE-lite project, and as such has rather strong investment in BitBake. I do not use BitBake as a command, but as a Python module, as OE-lite has a different dependency and runqueue/cooker model. Because of this I hope to find some time improve the separation between the parser, data and cooker in BitBake, but I will surely notice and have to do something about it if BitBake is regressed with regards to this. As for merging with sstate, OE-lite uses a completely different staging model (simple per-recipe package based), and I would be very unhappy if merging sstate into BitBake will make it impossible for OE-lite to use upstream BitBake. I haven't looked enough into the sstate implementation with regards to this yet though. Most of all, I would like to stress that there actually are other users of BitBake than OE and Poky. I hope this is considered a good thing seen from a BitBake perspective, and not a disturbance. If possible, perhaps we could have a small BitBake meeting at FOSDEM, trying to coordinate the way forward? Oh, btw. I feel completely comfortable with Chris as BitBake maintainer, that were /Esben _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
