Op 30 mrt. 2012, om 13:45 heeft Tom Rini het volgende geschreven:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 03:18:06PM -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
>> On 3/30/12 2:33 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>
>>> Op 30 mrt. 2012, om 12:26 heeft Mark Hatle het volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>>> On 3/30/12 1:44 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> RP said I should raise this on the yocto lists, so here it is:
>>>>>
>>>>> The Angstrom core team would like to move angstrom under the yocto banner
>>>>> so
>>>>> we can formally claim to be 'yocto'.
>>>>
>>>> For it to be on the yocto project web site, it just need to have the
>>>> layers hosted on the git.yoctoproject.org. But there is no "yocto".. It's
>>>> the Yocto Project, Poky, or specific git repositories. There is no reason
>>>> we can't have an angstrom repository. It could be in a similar format to
>>>> the Poky repository (everything combined for a single download), or it
>>>> could be a layer [or layers] that sit on top of Poky.
>>>
>>> Why on top of poky? I do not want poky, nor do my customers, oe-core is what
>>> we need and want. This proposal to move angstrom under yocto is targeted at
>>> eliminating 'poky' from the stack while still being able to say 'yocto'.
>>
>> Poky is a repository made up of bitbake + oe-core + meta-yocto, as
>> well as a distribution definition (in meta-yocto). I assume
>> angstrom has it's own distribution definition.
>>
>> So my question is why NOT on top of Poky (the repository, not
>> distribution definition)?
>
> What does being on top of poky buy the end user? ${some_tool} will be
> grabbing the repositories so it's not easier to grab bitbake + oe-core
> as one. It adds a barrier to end user to developer conversion since
> we'll have a lot of "OK, thanks for your contribution but next time
> please base against oe-core directly not poky". Not to speak for Denys
> or Chase but for Arago, why would we want to have the poky sample distro
> around on top of our distro?
>
>>> We both know that saying it is 'yocto' is wrong and misleading, but that's
>>> what users are asking for and yocto advocates seem to push. Just watch the
>>> ELC
>>> videos for yocto related presentations, 'yocto' and 'poky' are used
>>> interchangeably in most of them.
>>>
>>> A 'reference' should be just that, a reference, not a mandated part.
>>
>> It's hard to call something Yocto Project based unless it used
>> something from the Yocto Project. meta-yocto being on of those
>> components.
>
> So bitbake and oe-core don't count because they're external projects?
If oe-core doesn't count, that will go directly against the agreement the OE
developers made with the yocto ones when deciding to drop OE classic and start
oe-core.
If that's really the position of the yocto project I think the OE project will
need to seriously reconsider the merge and its participation in the yocto
project.
regards,
Koen
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
