From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sanddollar.geekisp.com (sanddollar.geekisp.com [216.168.135.167]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83412E013D4 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 09:23:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 24465 invoked by uid 1003); 1 Jul 2012 16:23:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.114?) (philip@opensdr.com@96.240.167.50) by mail.geekisp.com with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 1 Jul 2012 16:23:05 -0000 Message-ID: <4FF07968.8040103@balister.org> Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 12:23:04 -0400 From: Philip Balister User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tomas Frydrych References: <10398861.esnekvBoZU@helios> <4FE9D965.4070906@linux.intel.com> <3153041.1FMPtSpq0x@helios> <4FE9E58C.9020408@r-finger.com> <4FE9EEF6.7050001@r-finger.com> <4FEA0505.6010108@am.sony.com> <4FEACDE6.7040701@r-finger.com> <83905E03-FF88-48EC-9336-273B02FB9FB1@beagleboard.org> <4FEB69BB.2080906@r-finger.com> <02DD1E77-2FBE-413A-B852-6DC3EEC6A7E2@beagleboard.org> <4FEC0B65.5060104@r-finger.com> In-Reply-To: <4FEC0B65.5060104@r-finger.com> Cc: "yocto@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: the current yocto FAQ is pretty much valueless 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: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 16:23:06 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 06/28/2012 03:44 AM, Tomas Frydrych wrote: > Hi Koen, > > On 27/06/12 22:58, Koen Kooi wrote: >> I have no problem with poky-the-distro, I have a problem with >> poky-the-buildsystem. I warned mallum about this confusion years ago, >> but you know how stubborn he can be :) > > The Yocto naming confusion is entirely of Yocto making, nothing at all > to do with days of yore. There was never any confusion about what Poky > was before Yocto, just unhappiness of some that Poky was not just a > distro. :) > > Poky-the-buildsystem was simply necessary. OE-the-buildsystem is a > wonderful, rich, community project, but one in a constant and > unpredictable flux. This is great for tinkering, but PITA when trying to > develop and long term maintain a product (much bigger problem than what > sparked this thread for sure). In the absence of a clearly defined > process for the OE-the-buildsystem Poky had to bring sanity to the > buildsystem itself and could not be just a distro. It introduced QA, > releases, it focused on facilitating customization and manageable > upgrade paths (and even provided some documentation!). Poky used to be a build system + distro based on OpenEmbedded. Anything else is marketing :) Poky is now a distribution built with Yocto Project tooling. The Yocto Project is a project to help you create a distribution based on OpenEmbedded Core + some other things. I think this is the most accurate description possible. Philip > > Yocto is based on Poky; if it was not, it would need to create something > just like Poky (the alternative would be asserting complete control over > OE as a whole, not good I think). OE has benefited from the Poky effort > over the last seven years, and it is a better ecosystem for it. At the > same time, the OE systemd situation (a major system level change without > adequate consideration of the upgrade path) suggests to me that the need > for a sanitized OE-derivative remains. > > I shut up now. Really. Maybe. :-) > > (Perhaps I should add that I am not formally affiliated with the Yocto > project in any way, my opinions are really my own, not someone else's or > driven by a policy, I have a long history with Poky, so I am definitely > biased in a particular way, I work with Poky on daily basis, and I > tinker with Poky after hours.) > > Tomas > _______________________________________________ > yocto mailing list > yocto@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto >