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 yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD394E01304 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 04:27:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q32BRnxk007932; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 12:27:49 +0100 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 03987-06; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 12:27:45 +0100 (BST) 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 q32BRZu4007925 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 2 Apr 2012 12:27:38 +0100 Message-ID: <1333366056.647.21.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Matthew McClintock Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:27:36 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <4F7608DC.1000402@windriver.com> <26C6B15B-4A12-453A-A146-C884A5040178@dominion.thruhere.net> <4F7614FE.5000107@windriver.com> <1333141865.18082.120.camel@ted> <4F764759.1070801@linux.intel.com> <1EF3F9CE-3074-4925-8C57-B6382C0DAD83@dominion.thruhere.net> <4F764FB7.2080508@linux.intel.com> <95AC7E09-D28F-46CE-A49B-30719BB50B1B@dominion.thruhere.net> <4F765C0D.4000902@linux.intel.com> <8986DA27-376D-447E-A9CF-5BEF1B309961@dominion.thruhere.net> <4F766B84.9080505@linux.intel.com> <1333177590.18082.160.camel@ted> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org, Chris Larson , Darren Hart Subject: Re: Moving angstrom under the yocto banner 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: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 11:27:55 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun, 2012-04-01 at 21:08 -0700, Matthew McClintock wrote: > I think we should consider a "standard way" of integrating layers and > other bits. One method is (and I'm not recommending it) using 'git > submodules' - another is 'androids repo command'. If all the distros > (poky, angstrom, MEL, etc) could at least consider standardizing on > something like this it starts to becoming more obvious what exactly is > going on and what version of what is being pulled in and from where... I don't think there is common ground in this area to work with. There is a certain class of users who really need a single repo with all the pieces in to get started with. Poky and some of the solutions provided by various people on this list look like that. There is also the "scripts" approach taken by Angstrom and others and also the different commercial offerings from the OSVs which are different again. None of the implementations I've seen are wrong, they just help people in different ways (and have some downsides too). Maybe in time we'll see some standardisation in this area (we already have a small number of approaches rather than everyone being different) but at the moment, people are generally happy with their own solutions. I don't see much value in trying to force a standard way of doing things. Its orders of magnitude more important we share bitbake, OE-Core and make the layer model a success. Cheers, Richard