[yocto-ab] Form submission from: Yocto Project Compatible Registration

[Sanil kumar]

I also, feel, if this can avoid confusion, the vote is Yes.
At the same time, if we say poky is YP Compatible, will this lead to other confusions; esp under following cases?
- Our Yocto 1.3 release was "poky-danny-8.0"
- poky is one of the basic components used for Yocto Project

Thanks and Regards
Sanil.
________________________________________
From: yocto-ab-bounces at yoctoproject.org [yocto-ab-bounces at yoctoproject.org] on behalf of Richard Purdie [richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 4:36 AM
To: Philip Balister
Cc: Yocto Project; yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
Subject: Re: [yocto-ab] Form submission from: Yocto Project Compatible Registration

On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 10:54 -0800, Philip Balister wrote:
> On 02/16/2013 07:03 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > Just to explain this, we treat Poky as the reference code for the
> > project which we use for testing. I'm hearing people telling others that
> > Poky isn't YP Compatible which is going to lead to confusion.
> >
> > As our reference/testing code base, Poky should model best practises so
> > I think it deserves this status. I just want to make it official, clear
> > and head off this issue. I'm hoping this isn't a hard decision for the
> > AB :)
>
> Well, as far as best practices, the blurring of distro and bsp in
> meta-yocto is something I would argue against in all other layers,
> except meta-yocto :)
>
> But, OpenEmbedded knows you are trying really hard and votes yes.

The distro and bsp components were separated out into two separate
layers (meta-yocto and meta-yocto-bsp) quite a while ago so this should
be resolved now...

Cheers,

Richard

_______________________________________________
yocto-ab mailing list
yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto-ab