[yocto] Criteria for proposing a host distribution supported

[Laszlo Papp]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Paul Barker <paul at paulbarker.me.uk> wrote:

> On 26 July 2013 11:57, Laszlo Papp <lpapp at kde.org> wrote:
> > Actually, I also have problems with Debian stable? See the bugreports I
> > sent. It is mentioned as "supported distribution". Yet, it does not
> work. I
> > do not to follow the parallelism with Arch accordingly.
>
> The cost of supporting a distro will be dependent on the rate and
> magnitude of changes within that distro. Arch has large, frequent
> updates to core packages and so would have to be re-tested almost
> continuously. "Stable" releases of many distros limit how and when
> they will update things like gcc, binutils, etc and try not to
> introduce backwards-incompatible changes. Such things still slip
> through, but they are rare, so OE/Yocto can cope with the developer
> time needed to get the problem fixed. Supporting a rolling-release
> distro which follows the latest toolchain updates would essentially be
> an open-ended commitment.
>

I already explained that you are having a bit of double standard in here.
Updating is not a necessary evil. It is actually the nice way at times when
you get bugfixes, and do not wait for a simple one-liner fix for ages. Let
us not argue over personal styles. I hope, decisions are not based on
personal styles in here.


> > People can always revert the offending arch package to one week older if
> > they wanna use Yocto, or they can fix it. I do not see it a problem, and
> > easily solvable, especially with a clear CI documentation which should
> > happen for any node, anyhow.
>
> So we'd have to say "Arch Linux, with xxx version of gcc, yyy version
> of binutils, etc" was supported, not just "Arch Linux". How many
> packages do we specify the version of?
>

Obviously, the necessary few packages that are listed on the dependency
page.


> > The problem is currently that there is no any focus on Arch
>
> This is incorrect. Just because there Arch isn't "supported" doesn't
> mean no-one cares about it. When the sanity check for a broken make
> 3.82 was added to OE, I put in a bug report to Arch
> (https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/35968) and it got fixed.
>

No no, I was referring to the Yocto project, not Archlinux, and even then:
clear focus is not equal to occasional low-hanging fruit fixes.

Laszlo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/yocto/attachments/20130726/f19c1725/attachment.html>