[yocto] Moving angstrom under the yocto banner

[Chris Larson]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Darren Hart <dvhart at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 03/30/2012 06:37 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>
>> Op 30 mrt. 2012, om 18:21 heeft Darren Hart het volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>> So that brings us back to what does it mean for Angstrom to be a Yocto
>>> Project project I guess?
>>>
>>> In my very humble opinion (really), it still makes sense to build
>>> Angstrom with the components in the poky repository as part of a Yocto
>>> Project release. I understand that there is resistance to this idea.
>>
>> Yes, it would force angstrom developers to ignore upstream and work on
>> downstream projects
>
> That's an understandable concern. If I were a casual observer, I would
> expect every project identifying itself with the Yocto Project to
> interoperate with eachother at each release point. I would imagine that
> Angstrom developers would continue their feature development with the
> upstreams of bitbake and oe-core. As a Yocto Project release occurs (or
> shortly after, as is the case with many BSPs) I would then expect (again
> as a casual observer) that some effort went into ensuring some version
> of Angstrom works with the release of the poky repository.
>
> You've mentioned preferring to do this with set versions of bitbake and
> oe-core. Do oe-core and bitbake maintain stable branches? I didn't think
> they did. This makes it difficult to stabilize a release, and poky
> serves this purpose well in my opinion. I'm going to stop going down
> this path though as the policies surrounding this aren't clear to me and
> would be better coming from others (RP or Chris for example).
>
> Without this, people working with "The Yocto Project" are back to using
> different versions of bitbake and oe-core depending on which
> distribution or BSP they are building, and we ultimately end up where we
> started with unsolvable dependency chains and people passing around
> fixup patches for this or that issue.
>
>> or as I will label them from now on: forks.
>>
>>> Angstrom has been independent from poky and the Yocto Project in the
>>> past and I can understand not wanting to lose some of that
>>> individuality. However, too much individuality breeds chaos and
>>> fragmentation.
>>
>> I will draw a line in the sand here and say: Forcing people to ignore
>> upstream (oe-core/bitbake) and force a fork down their throats
>> breeds chaos and fragmentation.
>
>
> Don't be so dramatic Koen :-) Everybody involved knows the bitbake and
> oe-core in the poky repository are not forks, at least not in the sense
> you portray here. They are snapshots with the same maintainer (or subset
> of maintainers). They are no more "forks" than the stable Linux kernels
> maintained by Greg KH are forks of Linus' kernel. I won't presume to

Not to be terribly pendatic or difficult here, but technically, the
comparison you make here doesn't ring true. bitbake in poky *still*
has changes that never went into the upstream repository.
-- 
Christopher Larson