[yocto] Moving angstrom under the yocto banner

[Khem Raj]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 15:18 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
>> On 3/30/12 2:33 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> >
>> > Op 30 mrt. 2012, om 12:26 heeft Mark Hatle het volgende geschreven:
>> >
>> >> On 3/30/12 1:44 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> RP said I should raise this on the yocto lists, so here it is:
>> >>>
>> >>> The Angstrom core team would like to move angstrom under the yocto banner so
>> >>> we can formally claim to be 'yocto'.
>
> In the interests of clarity, as Tracey will tell you there is no
> "Yocto" (which is an SI prefix), only the "Yocto Project" :). I know
> some of us have bad habits but since we're trying to ensure we're all
> consistent, this is worth highlighting.
>
>> >> For it to be on the yocto project web site, it just need to have
>> the layers hosted on the git.yoctoproject.org.  But there is no
>> "yocto".. It's the Yocto Project, Poky, or specific git repositories.
>> There is no reason we can't have an angstrom repository.  It could be
>> in a similar format to the Poky repository (everything combined for a
>> single download), or it could be a layer [or layers] that sit on top
>> of Poky.
>> >
>> > Why on top of poky? I do not want poky, nor do my customers, oe-core is what
>> > we need and want. This proposal to move angstrom under yocto is targeted at
>> > eliminating 'poky' from the stack while still being able to say 'yocto'.
>>
>> Poky is a repository made up of bitbake + oe-core + meta-yocto, as well as a
>> distribution definition (in meta-yocto).  I assume angstrom has it's own
>> distribution definition.
>>
>> So my question is why NOT on top of Poky (the repository, not distribution
>> definition)?
>
> FWIW I don't think it has to be "on top of Poky".
>
> Basically the question is whether you'd include the meta-yocto layer or
> not. I know that doesn't have its own repository yet (but that's purely
> a time thing). I have no strong feelings either way about the inclusion
> of that layer. Its purposefully not got that much in it (one distro
> definition and some hardware/BSP addons).
>
> Also, Angstrom has a different repository format in the way the user
> fetches and interacts with layers. I don't think Yocto mandates any
> requirement in that area, or that it needs to.

I think the repository format used for poky in yocto project
could also be confusing things. Since it does not clone openembedded-core
or bitbake from upstream locations but maintains a copy of its own. even
though they are ditto copies of upstream it still has logical separation
that can be source of confusion. So if there was a meta-poky that defined
the distro policies and another integration layer that
sources openembedded-core and bitbake meta-poky and other layers
would make it much clearer.

As such OE-Core is distroless as we all know and can be built standalone
and poky uses most of defaults so meta-poky could be a thin layer on top
right now I think poky combines distro policy layer and integration
layer into one
which could also be source of confusion. I think creating distinct layers
for these two will clear up the air quite a bit.

Whether you want to include angstrom as an alternative distro layer is
Yocto project and angstrom community to decide I think this would make
the distinctions very clear.

-Khem