From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11A59E0072A for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:06:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Dec 2011 11:06:27 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,351,1309762800"; d="scan'208";a="87322018" Received: from unknown (HELO envy.home) ([10.255.12.211]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Dec 2011 11:06:27 -0800 Message-ID: <4EE8F3A1.3040109@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:06:09 -0800 From: Darren Hart User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110927 Thunderbird/7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Ashfield References: <4EE2911E.3090708@linux.intel.com> <4EE58DA5.9070301@windriver.com> <4EE68B9A.8080602@linux.intel.com> <4EE8D5D9.5070201@windriver.com> <4EE8E5D8.7060800@linux.intel.com> <4EE8EE57.1060608@windriver.com> In-Reply-To: <4EE8EE57.1060608@windriver.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.3 Cc: Yocto Project Subject: Re: linux-yocto: ktypes/tiny and some questions along the way 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: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:06:28 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12/14/2011 10:43 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > On 11-12-14 01:07 PM, Darren Hart wrote: Heavily trimmed down to the remaining points of discussion... >> So what does that mean here? Well, I suggest we put all the sources in >> standard (minus evil BSP patches obviously) and then create a ktype per >> DISTRO definition: > > And minus -rt at the moment. Yes, sorry, I intended that, but didn't make that clear. Agreed. >> >> yocto/base >> yocto/standard/base >> yocto/standard/poky >> yocto/standard/poky-rt >> yocto/standard/poky-tiny > > I'd want the distro not to be named in the branches, but yes, > that looks ok to me. Hrm, that's too bad. I really like the explicit coupling of the OE distro definition to the linux-yocto branch. It helps reinforce the concept of distro defined policy. I think I know where you are coming from though. > Yep, I'm not sold on a distro name, but if you change this to: > > yocto/base > yocto/standard/cfg (bad name, but I wanted something) > yocto/standard/rt > yocto/standard/tiny How about: yocto/base yocto/standard/default yocto/standard/rt yocto/standard/tiny "default" makes sense to me since, well, it is what we would use as the default if no specification in made. Also, it's a shorter way of saying "general purpose", which describes this policy/config fairly well. > Then the tree is more of a common base ... they are just names after > all! We already have 'yocto' in there, so that's enough specifics for > my taste. > > or we flip it around ... > > base > standard/yocto > standard/yocto-rt > standard/yocto-tiny > > Which looks more like what you proposed, but without the double > specific names. It's less typing! I like less typing. But if we're going to do that, why not: base standard/poky standard/poky-rt standard/poky-tiny If you would prefer to keep the branches build-system/distro agnostic, then I think the ideal would be: base standard/default standard/rt standard/tiny And, it's even LESS typing! Fingers, wrists, and keyboards everywhere will be thanking us. ;-) -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel