Re: [beagleboard] Yocto

Re: [beagleboard] Yocto

[Xianghua Xiao]

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Petr Štetiar <ynezz@true.cz> wrote:
> Michael J. Hammel <mjhammel@graphics-muse.org> [2010-12-03 11:01:27]:
>
> Hi,
>
>> I've heard of Yocto only in passing.  I'm assuming it's another
>> bitbake-based metabuild system?  Is there some reasoning why
>> Meego/Linaro/OpenEmbedded/Angstrom/Custom Builds cannot fill the
>> requirements of Yocto?  I don't mean that harshly at all - I'm just
>> curious about the evolution and true target audiences of these projects.
>> It's nice to have choices, but developers should have some idea of the
>> differences so they can choose wisely when just starting.
>
> Richard wrote nice summary[1], it's worth reading and it might answer your
> questions as well :-)
>
> 1. http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2010-November/026598.html
>
> -- ynezz
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Beagle Board" group.
> To post to this group, send email to beagleboard@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to beagleboard+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/beagleboard?hl=en.
>
>

May we know roughly how many paid resources are behind Yocto?

Which arch will be first officially supported? Will it be ATOM as Poky
is really part of Intel? Beagle/ARM will be done by the community
instead?

Thanks,
Xianghua

Re: [beagleboard] Yocto

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 10-12-03 02:11 PM, Xianghua Xiao wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Petr Štetiar<ynezz@true.cz>  wrote:
>> Michael J. Hammel<mjhammel@graphics-muse.org>  [2010-12-03 11:01:27]:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> I've heard of Yocto only in passing.  I'm assuming it's another
>>> bitbake-based metabuild system?  Is there some reasoning why
>>> Meego/Linaro/OpenEmbedded/Angstrom/Custom Builds cannot fill the
>>> requirements of Yocto?  I don't mean that harshly at all - I'm just
>>> curious about the evolution and true target audiences of these projects.
>>> It's nice to have choices, but developers should have some idea of the
>>> differences so they can choose wisely when just starting.
>>
>> Richard wrote nice summary[1], it's worth reading and it might answer your
>> questions as well :-)
>>
>> 1. http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2010-November/026598.html
>>
>> -- ynezz
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Beagle Board" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to beagleboard@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to beagleboard+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/beagleboard?hl=en.
>>
>>
>
> May we know roughly how many paid resources are behind Yocto?
>
> Which arch will be first officially supported? Will it be ATOM as Poky
> is really part of Intel? Beagle/ARM will be done by the community
> instead?

I can provide some answers for this part of the query.

In the 0.9 release, we already support the following arches:

   - x86(64), mips, arm and powerpc

These are all based on a 2.6.34 kernel base (with an option
for 2.6.37-rcX shortly). There are simulated targets for
each arch, and a hardware reference for each as well
(for ARM the reference hardware is the beagleboard).

Hope that helps,

Bruce

>
> Thanks,
> Xianghua
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto

Re: [beagleboard] Yocto

[Xianghua Xiao]

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Bruce Ashfield
<bruce.ashfield@windriver.com> wrote:
> On 10-12-03 02:11 PM, Xianghua Xiao wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Petr Štetiar<ynezz@true.cz>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Michael J. Hammel<mjhammel@graphics-muse.org>  [2010-12-03 11:01:27]:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> I've heard of Yocto only in passing.  I'm assuming it's another
>>>> bitbake-based metabuild system?  Is there some reasoning why
>>>> Meego/Linaro/OpenEmbedded/Angstrom/Custom Builds cannot fill the
>>>> requirements of Yocto?  I don't mean that harshly at all - I'm just
>>>> curious about the evolution and true target audiences of these projects.
>>>> It's nice to have choices, but developers should have some idea of the
>>>> differences so they can choose wisely when just starting.
>>>
>>> Richard wrote nice summary[1], it's worth reading and it might answer
>>> your
>>> questions as well :-)
>>>
>>> 1.
>>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2010-November/026598.html
>>>
>>> -- ynezz
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Beagle Board" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to beagleboard@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> beagleboard+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/beagleboard?hl=en.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> May we know roughly how many paid resources are behind Yocto?
>>
>> Which arch will be first officially supported? Will it be ATOM as Poky
>> is really part of Intel? Beagle/ARM will be done by the community
>> instead?
>
> I can provide some answers for this part of the query.
>
> In the 0.9 release, we already support the following arches:
>
>  - x86(64), mips, arm and powerpc
>
> These are all based on a 2.6.34 kernel base (with an option
> for 2.6.37-rcX shortly). There are simulated targets for
> each arch, and a hardware reference for each as well
> (for ARM the reference hardware is the beagleboard).
>
> Hope that helps,
>
> Bruce
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Xianghua
>> _______________________________________________
>> yocto mailing list
>> yocto@yoctoproject.org
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>
>

Will try it on my beagle.
I failed to find info on other hardware reference platform. And I
found 0.9 has an ATOM download as
well(http://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/downloads/yocto-0.9/).

Additionally, http://autobuilder.pokylinux.org:8010/ is not working.

Thanks,
Xianghua