From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tim.rpsys.net (93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk [93.97.173.237]) by mx1.pokylinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C3534C8121F; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 08:24:04 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oB8EO30p021572; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:24:03 GMT Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 21411-03; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:23:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oB8ENvvb021566 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:23:57 GMT From: Richard Purdie To: Chris Larson In-Reply-To: References: <1291812548.1554.475.camel@rex> Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 14:23:47 +0000 Message-ID: <1291818227.1554.589.camel@rex> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Cc: yocto , poky Subject: Re: Adding extra metadata to Yocto/Poky X-BeenThere: poky@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Poky build system developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 14:24:04 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 07:08 -0700, Chris Larson wrote: > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > > We're in a position where we have people wanting to extend Poky but > > wondering exactly how to add their own layer and make Poky useful for > > their specific use cases. > > > > This is a topic I want to work with the OE community on and have > > discussion about but equally, people are interested at the moment and we > > need something people can experiment with now so we can see what works > > and what doesn't. > > > > With this in mind I'm proposing we create a "poky-extras" repository > > which contains multiple user contributed layers. > > > > My proposed ground rules are: > > > > * it has the OE style open contributions model > > * consists of a set of layers, each clearly identified at the top level > > * each layer has a clearly named maintainer or maintainers > > * people respect the layer maintainers > > * layers are split into logical "topics" where at all possible > > > > Ultimately, the repo structure and some of the details could change but > > I'd like to experiment and see what we can come up with which is > > probably the only way we're going to move forward. > > > > Any comments, objections or better ideas? :) > > This seems fine to me as an area to hash out good practices and > experiment, as long as we don't expect to use this structure long > term. It makes sense for the core layers to be in one repo, but it > makes more sense to use one git repository per external layer, imo. > Is that the intent, or am I misunderstanding its purpose? That is the intent but we don't currently have the tooling to make repos per external layer work nicely for the end user (not that I think its too hard to create). This repo give us a way to experiment with splitting things up whilst still not hurting the end user experience too much. So its not the final solution, just what I think might be a good way to start hashing things out. Cheers, Richard From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tim.rpsys.net (93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk [93.97.173.237]) by mx1.pokylinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C3534C8121F; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 08:24:04 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oB8EO30p021572; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:24:03 GMT Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 21411-03; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:23:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oB8ENvvb021566 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:23:57 GMT From: Richard Purdie To: Chris Larson In-Reply-To: References: <1291812548.1554.475.camel@rex> Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 14:23:47 +0000 Message-ID: <1291818227.1554.589.camel@rex> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Cc: yocto , poky Subject: Re: [poky] Adding extra metadata to Yocto/Poky X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 14:24:04 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 07:08 -0700, Chris Larson wrote: > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > > We're in a position where we have people wanting to extend Poky but > > wondering exactly how to add their own layer and make Poky useful for > > their specific use cases. > > > > This is a topic I want to work with the OE community on and have > > discussion about but equally, people are interested at the moment and we > > need something people can experiment with now so we can see what works > > and what doesn't. > > > > With this in mind I'm proposing we create a "poky-extras" repository > > which contains multiple user contributed layers. > > > > My proposed ground rules are: > > > > * it has the OE style open contributions model > > * consists of a set of layers, each clearly identified at the top level > > * each layer has a clearly named maintainer or maintainers > > * people respect the layer maintainers > > * layers are split into logical "topics" where at all possible > > > > Ultimately, the repo structure and some of the details could change but > > I'd like to experiment and see what we can come up with which is > > probably the only way we're going to move forward. > > > > Any comments, objections or better ideas? :) > > This seems fine to me as an area to hash out good practices and > experiment, as long as we don't expect to use this structure long > term. It makes sense for the core layers to be in one repo, but it > makes more sense to use one git repository per external layer, imo. > Is that the intent, or am I misunderstanding its purpose? That is the intent but we don't currently have the tooling to make repos per external layer work nicely for the end user (not that I think its too hard to create). This repo give us a way to experiment with splitting things up whilst still not hurting the end user experience too much. So its not the final solution, just what I think might be a good way to start hashing things out. Cheers, Richard