From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QWHTy-0005Et-AS for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 02:27:50 +0200 Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 Jun 2011 17:24:24 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,361,1304319600"; d="scan'208";a="15842609" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.255.16.170]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 Jun 2011 17:24:24 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: Otavio Salvador Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:24:23 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-8-generic-pae; KDE/4.6.2; i686; ; ) References: <46ED2218-6735-449C-B10C-D557B92DA339@dominion.thruhere.net> <1308009720.15712.319.camel@rex> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201106140124.23185.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: Where is atom-pc.conf hiding? X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:27:50 -0000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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