in rereading this I don't want to seem ungrateful, since we've certainly benefited from the great effort on everyones part (package and distro maintainers, yacto and OE... everyone).
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:55 PM, C Michael Sundius <msund...@sundius.com>wrote: > > It seems to me that this is a bit of a battle between the package > maintainers and the distro maintainers.. Looking at this from my managements > side of things, we use OE as a tool and its really just a means to the end. > our customers demand that we do not change things (versions of software), > they demand stability and they view a change in busybox or anything else a > threat to stability. our management has also made an edict that we can not > use gplv3. For completely non technical reasons we simply cannot move to new > package versions without a substantial business justification. I suspect > that that there are many (more than you realize) folk out there who are > using OE for their own distro. If you simply whack package versions because > something newer came out you will have these people maintaining separate > recipes and we'll be swamped with the load and this tool will loose one of > its best attributes. > > The comment that disturbed me was that distros should just move ahead > "because its making things hard for the package maintainer". That doesn't > wash with me because if people are using your package then you should > support it or let someone else be the maintainer. In essence the distro's > use of that package are your customers and the reason you have a job. OE > does not exist as a product, rather a tool that enables customers, you can't > create this in a vacuum without understanding who is using it. > > distro maintainers are not all dumb and if they are they'll be the last > single one using an outdated version of the software. When that happens a > smart package maintainer will call it out leave out the old package. > Further, it would be nice for a warning to take place so that it might have > a "depracated" tag associated with the recipe for one release cycle to see > if anyone cribs. > > So I'm standing with the guy w/ asbestos short on. I'd like to see that OE > err on the side of "do no harm" to existing users. Its hard enough to rally > the troops to move to updated packages much less updated meta without you > leaving perfectly reasonable versions of software out of oe-core. > > mike > > _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
