[yocto] Moving angstrom under the yocto banner

[Tom Rini]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 04:09:37PM -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
> 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.

This is also my understanding and expectation.

-- 
Tom