On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 03:26:45PM +0300, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
On 08/07/2015 12:17 PM, Philip Balister wrote:
Thanks Khem. I also do not agree that we lack a self-sustaining
community. OpenEmbedded has functioned independently for far longer than
the Yocto Project has existed.
By
On 08/18/2015 10:54 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:
Now we see a lot of upgrades in oe-core which are done by people just
because package upgrade report says it's possible and the upgrade is
tested mostly by autobuilder (which doesn't exersize any extra layers
and runtime-test coverage is very low) -
On Tue, 2015-08-18 at 13:16 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
Is it still true that autobuilder cannot test different sets of layers
for different builds?
It would be nice to see meta-gplv2 as separate layer, but tested and
maintained as it is now inside oe-core (possibly with more help from
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:11:11AM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Tue, 2015-08-18 at 11:03 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:42:54AM +0200, Philip Balister wrote:
On 08/11/2015 10:46 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Burton, Ross
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:42:54AM +0200, Philip Balister wrote:
On 08/11/2015 10:46 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Burton, Ross ross.bur...@intel.com wrote:
On 11 August 2015 at 16:46, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
can we freeze this thread please.
On 08/11/2015 10:46 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Burton, Ross ross.bur...@intel.com wrote:
On 11 August 2015 at 16:46, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
can we freeze this thread please.
Or more usefully, reboot it. Philip, you're turning into Koen! Alex,
On 8/13/15 3:42 AM, Philip Balister wrote:
On 08/11/2015 10:46 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Burton, Ross ross.bur...@intel.com wrote:
On 11 August 2015 at 16:46, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
can we freeze this thread please.
Or more usefully, reboot
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 1:42 AM, Philip Balister phi...@balister.org wrote:
On 08/11/2015 10:46 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Burton, Ross ross.bur...@intel.com wrote:
On 11 August 2015 at 16:46, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
can we freeze this thread
On 8/11/15 3:36 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
On 11 August 2015 at 16:46, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com
mailto:raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
can we freeze this thread please.
Or more usefully, reboot it. Philip, you're turning into Koen! Alex, if
someone on this list asks what Poky is, 99%
On Aug 11, 2015, at 1:36 PM, Burton, Ross ross.bur...@intel.com wrote:
On 11 August 2015 at 16:46, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com
mailto:raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
can we freeze this thread please.
Or more usefully, reboot it. Philip, you're turning into Koen! Alex, if
someone on this
On 08/10/2015 10:15 PM, Philip Balister wrote:
This is perfectly fine with me. However, the subject has been whether
the scope of *oe-core/poky* can be expanded without compromising
What is Poky?
Uhm... http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky/about/
Alex
--
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 6:26 AM, Alexander Kanavin
alexander.kana...@linux.intel.com wrote:
On 08/10/2015 10:15 PM, Philip Balister wrote:
This is perfectly fine with me. However, the subject has been whether
the scope of *oe-core/poky* can be expanded without compromising
What is Poky?
On 11 August 2015 at 16:46, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
can we freeze this thread please.
Or more usefully, reboot it. Philip, you're turning into Koen! Alex, if
someone on this list asks what Poky is, 99% of the time they're trolling.
:)
The original and unanswered question was
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Burton, Ross ross.bur...@intel.com wrote:
On 11 August 2015 at 16:46, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
can we freeze this thread please.
Or more usefully, reboot it. Philip, you're turning into Koen! Alex, if
someone on this list asks what Poky is, 99%
On 08/10/2015 02:13 PM, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
On 08/08/2015 08:09 PM, Philip Balister wrote:
By 'self-sustaining' I mean 'being able to continuously produce quality
work'. Looking at layers in meta-openembedded, not all of them are of
high quality. Meta-gnome in particular is badly out of
On 08/08/2015 08:09 PM, Philip Balister wrote:
By 'self-sustaining' I mean 'being able to continuously produce quality
work'. Looking at layers in meta-openembedded, not all of them are of
high quality. Meta-gnome in particular is badly out of date, because no
one wants to maintain it properly.
On 08/07/2015 02:26 PM, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
On 08/07/2015 12:17 PM, Philip Balister wrote:
Thanks Khem. I also do not agree that we lack a self-sustaining
community. OpenEmbedded has functioned independently for far longer than
the Yocto Project has existed.
By 'self-sustaining' I
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Alexander Kanavin
alexander.kana...@linux.intel.com wrote:
My issue here is quality control. Someone still has to review the work of
those volunteer developers, and take action when they fail to take action.
Yocto at the moment does not have such a
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Richard Purdie
richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
As someone has volunteered to maintain the pre-GPLv3 parted recipe
(and I'll volunteer as a secondary maintainer, if that helps)
hopefully there would not be a serious maintenance burden on anyone
who
On 08/07/2015 08:12 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Alexander Kanavin
alexander.kana...@linux.intel.com wrote:
My issue here is quality control. Someone still has to review the work of
those volunteer developers, and take action when they fail to take action.
Yocto at the
On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:26 AM, Alexander Kanavin
alexander.kana...@linux.intel.com wrote:
On 08/07/2015 12:17 PM, Philip Balister wrote:
Thanks Khem. I also do not agree that we lack a self-sustaining
community. OpenEmbedded has functioned independently for far longer than
the Yocto
On 08/07/2015 12:17 PM, Philip Balister wrote:
Thanks Khem. I also do not agree that we lack a self-sustaining
community. OpenEmbedded has functioned independently for far longer than
the Yocto Project has existed.
By 'self-sustaining' I mean 'being able to continuously produce quality
On 07/31/2015 02:14 AM, Andre McCurdy wrote:
The number of high quality recipes which can be maintained in oe-core
depends on the number of developers actively using and contributing to
oe-core. More active developers means more recipes can be maintained
to a high quality.
My issue here is
On 07/11/2015 10:57 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
This does touch on something I have wondered about for a while, which is
whether the time has come to move the GPLv2 pieces to their own layer
and possibly their own maintainership. Obviously there are pros and cons
to doing that.
Thoughts?
I'm
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Alexander Kanavin
alexander.kana...@linux.intel.com wrote:
On 07/11/2015 10:57 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
This does touch on something I have wondered about for a while, which is
whether the time has come to move the GPLv2 pieces to their own layer
and possibly
On Sat, 2015-07-11 at 00:20 -0700, Andre McCurdy wrote:
GPLv3 was released in June 2007 and most GNU packages transitioned to
it fairly quickly, so by definition, the pre-GPLv3 version of any GNU
package is now very old and unsupported. We do have a precedent for
keeping pre-GPLv3 versions
26 matches
Mail list logo
