[yocto] Moving angstrom under the yocto banner

[Chris Larson]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Stewart, David C
<david.c.stewart at intel.com> wrote:
>>From: yocto-bounces at yoctoproject.org [mailto:yocto-
>>bounces at yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Richard Purdie
>>Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 2:11 PM
>>
>>The criteria I see for being part of the Yocto Project are:
>>
>>a) Sharing the project's objectives (e.g. making embedded Liunx
>>   development easier)
>>b) Willing to be part of the Yocto Project's governance structure
>>c) Bringing something new/beneficial to the Yocto Project (often with
>>   mutual benefit)
>>d) Have some kind of sustainable resource plan
>
> I would add:
> e) there should be interoperability with the other parts of the YP.
>
> Part of the benefit we're trying to create is that if someone invests in YP
> for their device, they should get benefit from the whole thing.  If a board
> manufacturer creates a BSP for YP v1.2, there should be no doubt whatsoever
> that it will work with that system.  Can anyone assure me that such a BSP
> would work under Angstrom?

Given that an OE priority has *always* been that distro, machine, and
image are largely independent, orthogonal components, and generally
speaking one can combine any combination of the three and have at
least a good shot at functionality, I'd say that if such a BSP did not
work under Angstrom, that'd be a bug that we'd all agree would need to
be fixed. As far as I know, this priority and attribute of the system
still exists.
-- 
Christopher Larson