[yocto] Moving angstrom under the yocto banner

[Koen Kooi]

Op 30 mrt. 2012, om 16:49 heeft Tom Rini het volgende geschreven:

> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:06:04PM +0000, Stewart, David C wrote:
> 
>> Finally, Dr. Kooi has stated that he doesn't see YP as an upstream. In fact, many 
>> of the OSVs (like Wind River, Mentor Graphics and now ENEA - yeah!) absolutely
>> want to use YP as their upstream. So I'm hoping we could change the definition
>> of YP/Poky/Angstrom so Angstrom could us Poky as its upstream ... no? Too
>> hard?
> 
> Putting on my "me, myself and I" hat and apologizing for putting words
> in a few peoples mouths, I think this speaks to the heart of the problem
> Koen is trying to express.

Exactly! I said that *poky* is not an upstream, nothing about YP. 

>  On a technical level, the goal has been
> something (and I'm simplifying a bit here) to say that poky (the distro)
> is an implementation of policy for oe-core.  oe-core, bitbake and N
> number of other layers (meta-intel, meta-fsl-ppc, meta-ti, meta-java,
> meta-oe, meta-so-on-and-so-forth) will say that this is their metadata
> for release X.  Some of these layers (bitbake, oe-core, poky the distro)
> are maintained by 'Yocto Project' folks like Richard.  Others are
> maintained by community folks (Koen, Eric B.) or other companies
> (Denys).
> 
> Now, you say "YP is an upstream".  But "Yocto Project" is an upstream
> for bitbake, and for openembedded-core and for poky (the distro) and a
> lot of other stuff.  However, meta-yocto (what got us going in this
> direction) is only an upstream for poky (the distro), and Richard has
> said it's a TODO list item to move poky (the distro) into a separate
> repository and thus make meta-yocto ONLY a conglomeration of other
> repositories.
> 
> It's GOOD that companies want to work with upstream, and at some high
> level "Yocto Project" is where that is, in so far as bitbake,
> openembedded-core, etc, get a lot of time and energy and resources of
> "Yocto Project" people.  But these also get community resources too.
> Koen for example DOES see "Yocto Project" as an upstream in that he
> contributes to openembedded-core, etc, etc.  Angstrom also sees "Yocto
> Project" as an upstream for the same reasons.  But on a technical level,
> none of us would say it that way.

Exactly.  I said that *poky* is not an upstream.

> And this is where the confusion emanates from I believe.  You're saying
> that Angstrom (the distro) should see poky (the distro) as it's
> upstream.  If I was a runner, I could make an analogy you would say "but
> that's silly!" and I would say "exactly!" and we'd all be on the same
> page.  So can we pretend I did?
> 
>> Anyway, if we can't get to this level of interoperability, then adding Angstrom 
>> to the Yocto project may add too much confusion.
> 
> If someone makes a layer and it works with meta-yocto +
> meta-SomeHWVendor and fails with meta-angstrom + openembedded-core +
> bitbake + meta-SomeHWVendor (and you can replace meta-angstrom with
> meta-arago or any other layer that provides distro policy) it's a bug,
> not a feature, and not what anyone expects to happen today.

Like meta-ti won't build with binutils newer than 2.20.x. We all agree that's a bug in meta-ti, not a bug in oe-core or poky (the distro).