[yocto] Moving angstrom under the yocto banner

[Koen Kooi]

Op 30 mrt. 2012, om 13:18 heeft Mark Hatle het volgende geschreven:

> On 3/30/12 2:33 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> 
>> Op 30 mrt. 2012, om 12:26 heeft Mark Hatle het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> On 3/30/12 1:44 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> RP said I should raise this on the yocto lists, so here it is:
>>>> 
>>>> The Angstrom core team would like to move angstrom under the yocto banner so
>>>> we can formally claim to be 'yocto'.
>>> 
>>> For it to be on the yocto project web site, it just need to have the layers hosted on the git.yoctoproject.org.  But there is no "yocto".. It's the Yocto Project, Poky, or specific git repositories.  There is no reason we can't have an angstrom repository.  It could be in a similar format to the Poky repository (everything combined for a single download), or it could be a layer [or layers] that sit on top of Poky.
>> 
>> Why on top of poky? I do not want poky, nor do my customers, oe-core is what
>> we need and want. This proposal to move angstrom under yocto is targeted at
>> eliminating 'poky' from the stack while still being able to say 'yocto'.
> 
> Poky is a repository made up of bitbake + oe-core + meta-yocto, as well as a distribution definition (in meta-yocto).  I assume angstrom has it's own distribution definition.
> 
> So my question is why NOT on top of Poky (the repository, not distribution definition)?

1) It's downstream, I want to use upstream (oe-core, bitbake)
2) meta-yocto is *absolutely* unwanted, the meta-ti layer angstrom uses has much, much better support for the beagleboard.
3) It's downstream
4) The combo repo makes it harder to contribute things back upstream
5) It's downstream

I know I can change bblayers.conf to remove any unwanted layers, but what's the point of using that combo repo if I do that? It means that angstrom developers have to spend more time explaining that yes, it's a single git repo, but no, you can't send patches against it.

>> We both know that saying it is 'yocto' is wrong and misleading, but that's
>> what users are asking for and yocto advocates seem to push. Just watch the ELC
>> videos for yocto related presentations, 'yocto' and 'poky' are used
>> interchangeably in most of them.
>> 
>> A 'reference' should be just that, a reference, not a mandated part.
> 
> It's hard to call something Yocto Project based unless it used something from the Yocto Project.  meta-yocto being on of those components.

So you are saying that meta-yocto is an absolute requirement for anything that wants to use 'yocto' in its messaging?

> There is enough confusion about yocto vs poky vs..  It's slowly being reconciled and defined.. but it's a slow process for all of us.

Hence this proposal.