Re: Where is atom-pc.conf hiding?

[Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>]

On Tuesday 14 June 2011 01:09:27 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> I know the delta is getting smaller and smaller. This is good. A good
> way to make it move faster is using OE-Core as basis. This will
> "force" the backporting of missing Poky's change to OE-Core to happen
> faster.

We *are* using oe-core as a basis. The thing limiting us right now is the lack 
of appropriate layer tooling, something which is being worked on right now and 
should arrive very soon - in fact the combo layer tool you responded to 
earlier is the most important piece that we need to fix this integration issue.

> Currently there're many people that base the stuff (that is target to
> OE-Core) on Poky and sometimes it cases issues (as the bitbake ones I
> used as example).

Since bitbake upstream and the one in poky are now very close (differences 
almost negligible) and we now send all of our changes via upstream first, I 
would not expect any more bitbake divergence in future.

I'm not saying we can't do better or we shouldn't test with oe-core alone - we 
definitely should do the latter more often. I can only reiterate what Richard 
has said - bear with us, we're working on it :)

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre