[meta-freescale] Please review the proposal of FSL Yocto layers reorg

[McClintock Matthew-B29882]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Bob Cochran <yocto at mindchasers.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The FSL Yocto layers reorg proposal is attached, can you please take a
>> look? Any comment and suggestion is welcome and appreciated.
>>
>
> Thanks Zhenhua.  I have a few questions and comments about your slides.
>
> *** Slide 2: "Move all FSL specific layers to totally open source, or as
> much as possible"
>
> I'm all for this.  Will this include your PowerPC Linux Tree?  I didn't see
> mention of this in your slides.  This can be found today on your public git,
> but it hasn't been updated in months.
>
> I assume there's lots of kernel activity (as can be witnessed on the
> linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org list), so I'm assuming an internal Linux tree
> is being patched often.  It would be great to be able to see your Linux tree
> patched as issues are being discussed & resolved on yocto & ozlabs mail
> lists.

We work on the upstream tree and also release an SDK kernel tree
that's fully tested. The layers tend to use the latter since it
supports all features. Nothing stopping users from adding a version
using the upstream tree.

>
>
>
> **** Slide 3: "FSL Layers maintained in git.am.freescale.net,
> gitfrescale.com, and git.yoctoproject.org"
>
> Is your goal to have these layers in sync?  Today, I can find a meta-fsl-ppc
> layer on yoctoproject and at git.freescale.com.  However, they are not in
> sync, and I have no idea why one is patched and one isn't.

They are somewhat in sync. The ones on git.freescale.com are still
denzil based for the last SDK release. Ones on git.yoctoproject.org
are newer and include danny and master branches as well.

>
>
> **** Slide 4: "Following layers will coexist:"
>
> I'm not sure what you mean.  Do you mean that a layer (e.g., poky) will
> exist separately on different servers?

I think it just means all these layers will be present in this phase.

>
>
> **** Slide 6: "A branch is created for each FSL SDK release to include the
> scripts to fetch..."
>
> I'm all for this one. Obviously, an SDK release implies a certain level of
> robustness.  I would like to see high quality, reviewed patches applied to
> an SDK branch as necessary so well defined, robust incremental releases
> could be generated between the ~6 month SDK release cycle.  The patches
> would only be bug fixes and not new package or recipe versions.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> meta-freescale mailing list
> meta-freescale at yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale