From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 281B3E01304 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 08:37:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 31 Mar 2012 08:37:55 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="scan'208";a="148199103" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.123.233]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 31 Mar 2012 08:37:54 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: Koen Kooi Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 16:37:54 +0100 Message-ID: <1558968.mplaJ6uI11@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.8.0 (Linux/3.0.0-17-generic-pae; KDE/4.8.1; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org 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: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 15:37:56 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Friday 30 March 2012 11:44:23 Koen Kooi wrote: > The Angstrom core team would like to move angstrom under the yocto banner so > we can formally claim to be 'yocto'. I think a lot of points have been well addressed in this thread already, but I wanted to add (and reiterate) a few things. None of this constitutes Yocto Project policy, just my own opinions. I think it's perfectly reasonable if you base something upon the openembedded- core and bitbake repositories to state that it is based upon the Yocto Project (aside from any other conditions which Richard has already talked about; I'm sure LF has some trademark policies as well). If you're supplying your own distro policy as many will in their projects, you would not need to have meta- yocto and it is reasonable if you are building a distribution such as Angstrom to want to exclude it, since you will never be using anything in it. Whatever you do though, I think you need to be able to demonstrate to your customers that you are in fact basing your release on top of a Yocto Project release. This could be accomplished through the use of tags - if you state that you use BitBake x.y and a specific OE-Core tag, and this matches up with the Yocto Project release you state you have based upon, then that should be sufficient. A few other thoughts: 1) Angstrom has a very distinct distro policy from the default provided by OE- Core (or indeed the Poky distro policy); it also currently uses different versions of eglibc and the toolchain. This does make it for certain purposes a slightly different platform from Poky or something else based on OE-Core. This is not necessarily a problem, and is no doubt backed by sound reasoning, but is worth noting and communicating to users. 2) With Angstrom being primarily a binary distribution, I have the impression that you expect that that its distro policy will not be deviated from. There's definitely a good reason for this and value in having such a distribution; but users need to be able to understand the distinction. The Yocto Project itself in providing a way to produce custom Linux distributions does not have such restrictions - we expect that users will make whatever customisations make sense for their project, although of course we make some recommendations as to how they might be implemented. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre