[yocto] Moving angstrom under the yocto banner

[Koen Kooi]

Op 30 mrt. 2012, om 16:52 heeft Darren Hart het volgende geschreven:

[snip]

> On 03/30/2012 02:11 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> 
>> 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'll take a couple careful steps into this arena to offer just one more
> possible criteria.
> 
> One of the touted goals/advantages/benefits of using the Yocto Project
> is to work with a vetted set of sources that are known to all work
> together, having had some level of QA performed. This is something the
> poky repository accomplishes by bringing specifc versions of bitbake and
> oe-core together (along with some other tooling). At some point, this
> gets rolled up into a release of the Yocto Project: 0.9, 1.1, and soon
> 1.2. It's common for someone to refer to these release points as the
> base for their BSP.
> 
> It therefor seems reasonable to me for a distribution definition (which
> is how I think of Angstrom - but feel free to correct me Koen) to make a
> statement like "This release of Angstrom builds with the Yocto Project
> X.Y release."

Yes, but see below

> I believe this is the sort of language that most outside developers
> would immediately understand and associate with being part of the Yocto
> Project.

What does a 'yocto project release' actually mean? Right now it looks more like a 'poky (the distro) release'. Since angstrom builds on oe-core and bitbake directly the statement (in the current situation) would be more like:

"This release of angstrom builds on oe-core 2012.1, bitbake 1.something.x, which matches the YP 1.x release".

If we move more things under the YP banner and convince subprojects to adopt the same schedule, we could make statements like:

"The Yocto Project 1.x release consist of the following modules:

* bitbake 1.x
* oe-core 2012.x
* poky $DOTT_character
* eglibc 2.17
* pseudo 1.2
* angstrom 2012.04
* meta-xilinx 6.5
... etc"

I think that would make it fit better with the "umbrella project" idea. "consists" might be a bad choice of words, I blame the unlimited coffee refills at the diner across the street :)

regards,

Koen