[yocto-ab] YP Advisory Board VOTE: NXP WaRP7 for YP Compatible

[Jeff Osier-Mixon]

Hi again folks - if you haven't yet voted on this, please do so we can
finalize it.

These orgs have voted:

MontaVista
OS Systems
Mentor
Timesys
OE
Wind River
Intel

thanks

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Jeff Osier-Mixon <jefro at jefro.net> wrote:
> Hi folks - NXP has requested YP Compatible status for their WaRP7 IoT
> and wearable development platform. This is software currently present
> in meta-fsl-arm-extra, but it is a separate project.
>
> Their eventual goal is to have this platform mentioned on the website
> in the IoT section, for which I think it is very well suited. However,
> that does not affect whether or not it can be listed as YP Compatible.
>
> More info:
>
> [1] https://imxdev.gitlab.io/blog/new_boards/2016/09/05/WaRP7_Launch_and-_Preview/
> [2] https://www.element14.com/community/docs/DOC-79058
> [3] http://freescale.github.io/doc/release-notes/2.1/
> [4] https://github.com/WaRP7
>
> Please take a look at this and vote yes/no. We can also discuss it
> briefly at our face to face next week in Berlin, but it looks like a
> slam-dunk to me.
>
>    --Contact information--
>      Organization: NXP Semiconductors
>      Project name: WaRP7: Next gen IoT and Wearable Development
>      platform
>      Contact name: Daiane Angolini
>      Contact email address: daiane.angolini at nxp.com
>      URL to organization or product link: www.nxp.com/NXPDesigns/WaRp7
>      Registration date: 2016-10-04
>      Compliance Agreement revision: 1.0
>      Yocto Project Compatible Version: 2.1
>
>
> Acceptance Criteria:
>   - Working towards and supporting the aims and objectives of the Yocto
> Project. These include decreasing the fragmentation of embedded ecosystem and
> focus around a common shared set of tools, formats and best practices. We
> want to avoid multiple groups of people repeating the same work and have one
> set of great tools rather than multiple tools with drawbacks.: Yes
>   - Promoting the OpenEmbedded architecture, layer model, and BSP format.:Yes
>   - Making visible contributions in the OpenEmbedded and component projectsof
> the Yocto Project. Please describe your participation in the comments section
> below.: Yes
>   - Are all your publicly accessible layers listed in the OpenEmbedded Layers
> index (http://layers.openembedded.org)?: Yes
>   - Be a non-profit, or member of the Yocto Project working group, regardless
> of organization size, or if the project's parent organization is an
> open-source project.: Yes
>   - If the project includes build system functionality, are BitBake and
> OpenEmbedded-Core included as components?: Yes
>   - If present, can the directories containing BitBake and OpenEmbedded-Core
> be clearly identified within the system and only contain those components?:
> Yes
>   - Have all patches applied to BitBake and OpenEmbedded-Core (if present)
> been submitted to the open source community?: Yes
>   - Do all layers contain a README file which details the origin of thelayer,
> its maintainer, where to submit changes, and any dependencies or version
> requirements?: Yes
>   - Do all layers build without errors against OpenEmbedded-Core with onlythe
> dependencies/requirements listed in their README file?: Yes
>   - (For BSPs) Does the layer follow the format defined in the Yocto Project
> Board Support Package (BSP) Developers Guide?: Yes
>   - Are hardware support, configuration (distro) policy, and recipe metadata
> separated into different layers which do not depend on each other?: Yes
>   - Is a test report document included showing which combinations of layers,
> recipes, and machines have been tested?: No (explain below)
>   - If any item in the "Yocto Project Compatible Compliance Recommendations"
> list is not true, is this documented in the testing report?: No (explain
> below)
> Recommendations:
>   - Linux kernels are either based around LTSI kernel versions or a Yocto
> Project kernel version.: Yes
>   - Everything builds successfully with the standard toolchain from OE-Core,
> where the architecture is one supported by OE-Core as standard. This is to
> ensure that your layers are compatible with OE-Core. It is not required that
> the OE-Core toolchain be provided to customers or any downstream projects.:
> Yes
> Explanation:
> We use kernel 4.1.y from https://github.com/WaRP7/linux-fslc
> We use the layer meta-fsl-arm-extra which depends on meta-fsl-arm
>
> --
> Jeff Osier-Mixon - Open Source Community Engineer, Intel Corporation



-- 
Jeff Osier-Mixon - Open Source Community Engineer, Intel Corporation