From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from vms173017pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.17]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PEPcF-0005n9-Pc for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:58:16 +0100 Received: from gandalf.denix.org ([unknown] [71.255.228.135]) by vms173017.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0LBF00C488FC4ET7@vms173017.mailsrvcs.net> for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 05 Nov 2010 11:57:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: by gandalf.denix.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BEFAA14AF6A; Fri, 05 Nov 2010 12:57:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 12:57:11 -0400 From: Denys Dmytriyenko To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Message-id: <20101105165711.GC6115@denix.org> References: <20101105010014.GA6115@denix.org> <20101105073448.GD3702@excalibur.local> MIME-version: 1.0 In-reply-to: <20101105073448.GD3702@excalibur.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 206.46.173.17 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: denis@denix.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: Re: Moving to layered structure of openembedded metadata X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 16:58:16 -0000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 08:34:48AM +0100, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > Hello. > > On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 21:00, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > > > That is already being discussed and decided. See the following previous topics > > on the mailing list... > > To clear this up a bit. There can't be a real decision for now. Not all > developers have been present at the OEDEM and we haven't discussed every detail > their either. :) > > Most, if not all, people liked the idea during the OEDEM discussions, but we > would need more input on problem that this may rise. As it stands I'm happy to > see Khem coming up to put this on the ml. :) > > One I currently see is how we can keep it all working when the layers are > maintained in different places and what kid of combinational explosion we will > have with layers in different places. That is exactly what I said - being discussed and (being) decided. I didn't say it was or has been already decided. "Being" is not the same as "been"! :) I.e. present continuous instead of past tense. And BTW, it may not be a simple decision after all - while technically Yocto seems quite a decent project and embracing it would be reasonable, many large companies are still having issues with it's governance model and past issues with Intel's other seemingly "open source" projects... The good news is that this side of the problem is now being actively looked at for any possible solutions, which would benefit all involved... -- Denys