On 03/30/2012 08:00 PM, Chris Larson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Darren Hart <dvh...@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> On 03/30/2012 06:37 PM, Koen Kooi wrote: >>> >>> Op 30 mrt. 2012, om 18:21 heeft Darren Hart het volgende geschreven: >>>> >>>> So that brings us back to what does it mean for Angstrom to be a Yocto >>>> Project project I guess? >>>> >>>> In my very humble opinion (really), it still makes sense to build >>>> Angstrom with the components in the poky repository as part of a Yocto >>>> Project release. I understand that there is resistance to this idea. >>> >>> Yes, it would force angstrom developers to ignore upstream and work on >>> downstream projects >> >> That's an understandable concern. If I were a casual observer, I would >> expect every project identifying itself with the Yocto Project to >> interoperate with eachother at each release point. I would imagine that >> Angstrom developers would continue their feature development with the >> upstreams of bitbake and oe-core. As a Yocto Project release occurs (or >> shortly after, as is the case with many BSPs) I would then expect (again >> as a casual observer) that some effort went into ensuring some version >> of Angstrom works with the release of the poky repository. >> >> You've mentioned preferring to do this with set versions of bitbake and >> oe-core. Do oe-core and bitbake maintain stable branches? I didn't think >> they did. This makes it difficult to stabilize a release, and poky >> serves this purpose well in my opinion. I'm going to stop going down >> this path though as the policies surrounding this aren't clear to me and >> would be better coming from others (RP or Chris for example). >> >> Without this, people working with "The Yocto Project" are back to using >> different versions of bitbake and oe-core depending on which >> distribution or BSP they are building, and we ultimately end up where we >> started with unsolvable dependency chains and people passing around >> fixup patches for this or that issue. >> >>> or as I will label them from now on: forks. >>> >>>> Angstrom has been independent from poky and the Yocto Project in the >>>> past and I can understand not wanting to lose some of that >>>> individuality. However, too much individuality breeds chaos and >>>> fragmentation. >>> >>> I will draw a line in the sand here and say: Forcing people to ignore >>> upstream (oe-core/bitbake) and force a fork down their throats >>> breeds chaos and fragmentation. >> >> >> Don't be so dramatic Koen :-) Everybody involved knows the bitbake and >> oe-core in the poky repository are not forks, at least not in the sense >> you portray here. They are snapshots with the same maintainer (or subset >> of maintainers). They are no more "forks" than the stable Linux kernels >> maintained by Greg KH are forks of Linus' kernel. I won't presume to > > Not to be terribly pendatic or difficult here, but technically, the > comparison you make here doesn't ring true. bitbake in poky *still* > has changes that never went into the upstream repository.
I wasn't aware. Not knowing what they are, I'll have to leave a comment on those to others. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto