From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.geekisp.com ([216.168.135.169] helo=starfish.geekisp.com) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PzGBq-0000Ue-4F for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 23:24:38 +0100 Received: (qmail 4163 invoked by uid 1003); 14 Mar 2011 22:22:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.167?) (philip@opensdr.com@74.107.167.114) by mail.geekisp.com with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 14 Mar 2011 22:22:58 -0000 Message-ID: <4D7E953E.2000706@balister.org> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:22:54 -0400 From: Philip Balister User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.1.7-0.35.b3pre.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org References: <4D7E3B34.5050100@mentor.com> In-Reply-To: <4D7E3B34.5050100@mentor.com> Subject: Re: Discussion: Version retention policy in oe-core 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: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:24:38 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 03/14/2011 11:58 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > Hi all, > > The TSC has discussed this item at the request of the community and has > come up with the following recommendation which we are looking for > feedback (positive/negative/neutral) before putting this up on the wiki. Looks reasonable. One thing I did not see is asking people not to add a new recipe and delete the old one in separate commits. This makes it easier to figure out problems when they arise. Philip > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Discussion: Version retention policy in oe-core > Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:05:25 -0600 > From: Mark Hatle > Reply-To: tsc@lists.openembedded.org > Organization: Wind River Systems > To: > > This is a follow on to Tom's original post. The attempt is to merge his > original thoughts with my own. > > --- > > As has been discussed in a few places, there needs to be a policy that > is followed about how long to retain (or when to replace) old recipes > within the oe-core repository as well as what to do with older versions > of things. > > It is expected that OE will have a related meta-oe or similar layers > which older components can be moved into while they are still useful and > desirable to maintain. However, these will be alternative versions and > not the "core" version any longer. > > Within the oe-core we can divide the components into two classes. > Critical infrastructure components and standard components. The critical > components include the toolchain, autotools, and key libraries. > Virtually everything else fits into the standard components bucket. > > We also have use cases such as: > - Upstream provides provides support (new releases) and clear guidelines > on upgrading for version 4.0 (current), version 3.8 (previous and > stable) and version 3.6 (further previous, stable). Upstream is also > working on version 4.1.x (unstable, active development). > - Upstream provides no clear policy about what's supported other than > current. > - Community standards indicate a specific version should be used rather > then the latest for some reason > - An architecture requires specific versions. > > We would like to propose the following: > > The goal of oe-core is to remain a stable, yet up-to-date set of > software that forms the foundation of the Open Embedded world. While not > everyone will be able to agree on a broad definition of "stable, yet > up-to-date" the following guidelines will help define the rules for the > inclusion and/or replacement of different versions into the oe-core. > > First, each of the packages need to be divided into two categories: > Critical Infrastructure and Core components. If an item is neither of > these, then the oe-core is likely the wrong place for the component. > > By default we want to use the latest stable version of each component. > The latest stable version of each component is defined by the > component's upstream. When there is no clear policy from upstream we > simply have to apply best judgment. > > There of course will be exceptions to the default policy. However, when > an exception occurs it must be clearly stated and documented when and > why we did not use the latest stable version -- or why we may have > multiple versions available of a given component. This will allow us to > reevaluate the exceptions on a timely basis and decide the exception is > no longer reasonable. > > Most of these exceptions will be located in the critical infrastructure > components, specifically the toolchains. In many cases we will need to > support variants of these components either for stability or > architectural reasons. > > Another common exception is to meet specific policy or compatibility > objectives within the system, such as the need to support both GPLv2 and > GPLv3 versions of selected components. > > If multiple versions are provided, usually the latest stable version > will be preferred, however best judgment will be used to determine the > preferred version. > > As existing versions of removed, if they are still desirable, they > should be moved into meta-oe or a suitable layer. > > We also have the issue of upcoming development versions it is suggested > that upcoming development versions of software be worked on in specific > development layers until they have reach sufficient maturity to be > considered stable and ready for inclusion in oe-core. > > Related to this are: > - We want to encourage distributions that are tracking the latest to try > and stay with the latest. > - We want to encourage recipes which people are interested in to be > maintained long term to be maintained, long term, in meta-oe. > - We want to encourage distributions to work with and add to / maintain > the core rather than deciding we have too frequent of an unhelpful churn > (which is to say 4.0.1 -> 4.0.2 of $whatever is good, 4.0.1 -> 4.4.3 of > $whatever is not). > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel >