[yocto-ab] Angstrom Request for Yocto Project Compatibility Status

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 17:40 -0400, William Mills wrote:
> On 09/04/2012 12:36 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > This raises some questions and may highlight a grey area in the
> > compliance questions.
> >
> > Angstrom is requesting compliance with our 1.2 release. Its lists the
> > meta-oe layer as a dependency in its README (for the wrong reasons but
> > Koen fixed that when prompted).
> >
> > The key question is:
> >
> > """
> > Are hardware support, configuration (distro) policy, and recipe metadata
> > separated into different layers which do not depend on each other?
> > """
> >
> > and this clearly and very publicly wasn't the case for the denzil (1.2)
> > branch of meta-oe.
> 
> meta-oe is actually a number of layers.  I presume you have verified 
> that the mixing occurs in layers that Angstrom actually uses, correct?

Correct. meta-systemd does not exist in the denzil branch.

> Is meta-yocto actually clean in regard to this rule??

Technically I guess not since there is a distro and hardware support
mixed in one layer. They can at least be cleanly selected (or otherwise)
and separating them out is trivial so they meet the intent of the
statement if not the letter but we need to fix this...

> > Angstrom requires meta-oe to build and hence one of its components is in
> > clear violation of the above question. So my recommendation is to say
> > that Angstrom isn't compatible with 1.2 but likely will be for 1.3 and
> > suggest they reapply then.
> 
> Koen could also rework the 1.2 branch of meta-oe.  He is not limited to 
> what meta-oe looked like at the point YP 1.2 was released.  I don't 
> think there is any time criteria in the compliance statements.

Yes, he also has the option of backporting the changes.

Cheers,

Richard