From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.cbnco.com ([207.164.182.72]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nexy4-0006pA-Ln for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:50:04 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cbnco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA8014BCA6 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:47:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp.cbnco.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.cbnco.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24087-09 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:47:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from [172.20.22.83] (auriga-dmzgw.cbnco.com [207.164.182.65]) by smtp.cbnco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9FA0D4BC8D for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:47:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4B71D7F0.6070706@cbnco.com> Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:47:28 -0500 From: Michael Smith User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org References: <18e217241002080848t193add2drd5603d0c252ee509@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <18e217241002080848t193add2drd5603d0c252ee509@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cbnco.com X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 207.164.182.72 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: msmith@cbnco.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on linuxtogo.org); Unknown failure Subject: Re: Working with OEMs 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: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:50:04 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit C Michael Sundius wrote: > Further, I wonder if there are others out there who also feel > this way? My understanding is that Monta Vista is using OE; are there voices > on this list from MV or others that use OE for creating a consistent means > of building for developers and Config/Release Managers? If so, what are your > tricks and complaints with respect to this issue. Hi Mike, I'm using COLLECTIONS, the srctree and gitver classes, plus amend.inc. I think all of the above come from Chris at MV. It's about three billion times better than the custom build system we had before. We have four trees: - public: playground for new recipes before submitting to OE; also, amend.inc's to tweak packaging behaviour or configure flags. - private: recipes to build closed-source drivers from our suppliers; - oe: full org.openembedded.dev; - proj: git repos for internal projects get cloned here, and added to COLLECTIONS with wildcards Building the internal projects with OE means they barely even need to be cross-compile aware. All they need is a simple Makefile, and a git tag to set the package version. It's way easier than writing a one-off build system for each project. The only problem is that bitbake takes forever to start up: COLLECTIONS causes a re-exec of Python, I think, and there are about 8,000 recipes in the tree. But we get around it by passing in a specific recipe file with -b. For release management, I have a class that creates a list of the .deb packages that would have gone into an image, and a script that checks them into the right place in CVS. If you use Angstrom I think you get the same list for free every time you build an image. The class just saves me from waiting for rootfs to run. Mike