From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UCqwg-0005Af-EC for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 13:26:14 +0100 Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2013 04:08:16 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,787,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="293812239" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.255.12.96]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2013 04:09:43 -0800 From: Paul Eggleton To: Martin Dietze Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 12:09:42 +0000 Message-ID: <6717637.hIAbfv92vg@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.10 (Linux/3.5.0-24-generic; KDE/4.10.0; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20130302174624.GH21221@fh-wedel.de> References: <20130302174624.GH21221@fh-wedel.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: Nylon liveth (but on in OE?) 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: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 12:26:15 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Saturday 02 March 2013 18:46:24 Martin Dietze wrote: > Nylon is the distribution with which the 4G Meshcube/AccessCube > was shipped. As a former 4G employee I took over maintainership > and started re-integrating Nylon into org.openembedded.dev in > 2009. However Nylon was and still is based on an old toolchain > and a 2.4 kernel. This lead to increasing problems keeping the > code buildable, as more and more code would no longer work on > a basis that old. Thus Nylon is now obsoleted in OE (and I'd > say rightly so). > > Not having had the time to work on this in the last years I've > now decided to go the easy way and simply fork at some time in > 2009 when the code was still more or less working and continue > from there. The main benefit from using my work rather than the > original 4G toolchain (which was itself a fork from a much older > OE snapshot) I see in having a larger set of recipes to add > components from if needed and also some updated components in > the base system > > This work has now been done, and I wonder where the code should > live from now on. I would thus like to ask if keeping my branch > in the OE repo would be an acceptable option to the project > maintainers. Doing this we could probably just remove all the > remaining mtx-[12] artifacts from the .dev branch (I am not sure > if mtx-3 is maintained by anyone any longer, at least it is not > by me). > > I know that there's possibly only very few people interested in > this, but I'd really like to avoid forking completely, also > the idea of still being able to grab some recipes from the .dev > branch if needed would be nice, and it would simplify contributing > for others. If this idea is not an acceptable option for you, of > course, I can still push my fork to github. > > What do you think about it? I don't have a personal interest in this particular distro/hardare, but if the fork you have made is working then I can't see a compelling reason not to host a branch for it in the OE-Classic repository; at least that keeps things more or less in one place. However, is there any chance you'd be able to look at moving up to be based on top of OE-Core which is where OE is at currently? Obviously toolchain and kernel would be the first hurdles. For bringing any needed metadata up-to-date though the community can provide help where needed. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre