[yocto-ab] Yocto Project Compatible v2

[Khem Raj]

> On Oct 5, 2016, at 3:20 PM, Richard Purdie <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> Since I seem to be making a few proposals, I think it also makes sense
> for me to summarise what I believe we need to do with Yocto Project
> Compatible.
> 
> I believe if we're improving the website, the time is right for a v2
> programme. The biggest change I want to make is the one I've talked
> about for a while. This is where we use the sstate signatures to make
> automated tests of layers for compatibility. In principle this is
> straight forward. A machine layer (containing conf/machine/*.conf
> files) should be able to be added to bblayers.conf without changing the
> sstate checksums of target recipes. The only time the checksums would
> change is if the MACHINE is set to select the specific machine.
> Similarly, a distro layer would only change checksums if and only if
> DISTRO is actually selected. No layer would contain both distro files
> and machine files. We already have examples of these kinds of sstate
> tests in oe-selftest.
> 
> The compatibility questions would then have an additional one stating
> that they could run some script without errors.
> 
> The only other major change I'd like to consider is mandating some kind
> of "this layer is compatible with versions X, Y" markup in the layer.
> The system could then use this to warn a user when they try and use a
> layer designed for fido with krogoth etc. This is mainly a technical
> question of deciding how best to do this (likely in layer.conf), then
> we just require it for YP compatible.

perhaps there should be a variable we should have in OE-Core to denote
this much like LAYERDEPENDS or may be extension of it.

> 
> In addition, I'd like to write a Q&A guidance document to go alongside
> the questions which would be based on the things that have been asked
> since the original programme launched. It would clarify some of the
> common questions and issues people run into.

For BSPs probably it will be good for them to have same level of testing
that a YP reference BSP goes through.

> 
> With an improved website and some advocacy around this, I believe we
> could show better value to the project and also at the same time deal
> with some of the compatibility issues people face.
> 
> Again, this is really a straw man proposal but should give us a
> starting point to discuss. My main struggle with this has been finding
> time to write the script and/or the QA document but I don't believe
> these should be too difficult, I just need to prioritise it.
> 
> Thoughts/comments/feedback welcome!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> --
> _______________________________________________
> yocto-ab mailing list
> yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto-ab

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/yocto-ab/attachments/20161005/184ac999/attachment.pgp>