Re: Moving angstrom under the yocto banner

[Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>]

On 03/30/2012 08:00 PM, Chris Larson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> On 03/30/2012 06:37 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>
>>> Op 30 mrt. 2012, om 18:21 heeft Darren Hart het volgende geschreven:
>>>>
>>>> So that brings us back to what does it mean for Angstrom to be a Yocto
>>>> Project project I guess?
>>>>
>>>> In my very humble opinion (really), it still makes sense to build
>>>> Angstrom with the components in the poky repository as part of a Yocto
>>>> Project release. I understand that there is resistance to this idea.
>>>
>>> Yes, it would force angstrom developers to ignore upstream and work on
>>> downstream projects
>>
>> That's an understandable concern. If I were a casual observer, I would
>> expect every project identifying itself with the Yocto Project to
>> interoperate with eachother at each release point. I would imagine that
>> Angstrom developers would continue their feature development with the
>> upstreams of bitbake and oe-core. As a Yocto Project release occurs (or
>> shortly after, as is the case with many BSPs) I would then expect (again
>> as a casual observer) that some effort went into ensuring some version
>> of Angstrom works with the release of the poky repository.
>>
>> You've mentioned preferring to do this with set versions of bitbake and
>> oe-core. Do oe-core and bitbake maintain stable branches? I didn't think
>> they did. This makes it difficult to stabilize a release, and poky
>> serves this purpose well in my opinion. I'm going to stop going down
>> this path though as the policies surrounding this aren't clear to me and
>> would be better coming from others (RP or Chris for example).
>>
>> Without this, people working with "The Yocto Project" are back to using
>> different versions of bitbake and oe-core depending on which
>> distribution or BSP they are building, and we ultimately end up where we
>> started with unsolvable dependency chains and people passing around
>> fixup patches for this or that issue.
>>
>>> or as I will label them from now on: forks.
>>>
>>>> Angstrom has been independent from poky and the Yocto Project in the
>>>> past and I can understand not wanting to lose some of that
>>>> individuality. However, too much individuality breeds chaos and
>>>> fragmentation.
>>>
>>> I will draw a line in the sand here and say: Forcing people to ignore
>>> upstream (oe-core/bitbake) and force a fork down their throats
>>> breeds chaos and fragmentation.
>>
>>
>> Don't be so dramatic Koen :-) Everybody involved knows the bitbake and
>> oe-core in the poky repository are not forks, at least not in the sense
>> you portray here. They are snapshots with the same maintainer (or subset
>> of maintainers). They are no more "forks" than the stable Linux kernels
>> maintained by Greg KH are forks of Linus' kernel. I won't presume to
> 
> Not to be terribly pendatic or difficult here, but technically, the
> comparison you make here doesn't ring true. bitbake in poky *still*
> has changes that never went into the upstream repository.

I wasn't aware. Not knowing what they are, I'll have to leave a comment
on those to others.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel