* [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org @ 2010-12-20 15:53 Koen Kooi 2010-12-20 16:56 ` Graeme Gregory ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Koen Kooi @ 2010-12-20 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I've locally split http://gitorious.org/angstrom/angstrom-layers/commits/master into 3 seperate git repos with git-filter-branch. I would like to move the meta-openembedded layer to the OE git server to make it easier for others to help in cleaning it up and getting more use to layers. The beagle and angstrom layers could move there as well, but those will need a more restricted set of committers. In essence I would like this to be the "official" OE layer for yocto while the board is dealing with the yocto negotiations. This would be a good chance to try out things like 'maintainers' and 'pull requests' if we wanted to :) regards, Koen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFND3wGMkyGM64RGpERAspRAKCQS+ZtZqw/my9oTZ8l+O4KqD+WDQCcDeij 7XzhyxcmFBpGtwWwGZC7QT0= =EH9g -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org 2010-12-20 15:53 [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org Koen Kooi @ 2010-12-20 16:56 ` Graeme Gregory 2010-12-20 17:16 ` Frans Meulenbroeks 2010-12-21 9:45 ` Khem Raj ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Graeme Gregory @ 2010-12-20 16:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel On 20/12/2010 15:53, Koen Kooi wrote: > Hi, > > I've locally split > http://gitorious.org/angstrom/angstrom-layers/commits/master into 3 > seperate git repos with git-filter-branch. I would like to move the > meta-openembedded layer to the OE git server to make it easier for > others to help in cleaning it up and getting more use to layers. The > beagle and angstrom layers could move there as well, but those will need > a more restricted set of committers. > > In essence I would like this to be the "official" OE layer for yocto > while the board is dealing with the yocto negotiations. > > This would be a good chance to try out things like 'maintainers' and > 'pull requests' if we wanted to :) > > regards, > > Koen +1 G _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org 2010-12-20 16:56 ` Graeme Gregory @ 2010-12-20 17:16 ` Frans Meulenbroeks 2010-12-20 19:25 ` Maupin, Chase 2010-12-21 8:16 ` Koen Kooi 0 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Frans Meulenbroeks @ 2010-12-20 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel Nice piece of work & a good plan but... Who will be the owners/maintainers of the layers? I maintain several multimedia recipes (mythtv with all that is dragged in (which is a.o. a lot of perl stuff), various cd* related recipes, python-coherence and the python stuff it uses, mediatomb, and it seems recently people seem to see me as the first line of contact if they have musicpd issues), as well as some file sharing recipes. Any idea on how I get them added, and how to deal with updates for these? An alternate approach would be to let the stuff live in poky-extras. See this proposal from RP: http://www.mail-archive.com/yocto@yoctoproject.org/msg00286.html Frans. PS: personally I would have preferred it if console-image was in the common part.I guess some other recipes will get fairly identical recipes. Maybe we should have a generic console-image and let each distro use .bbappend or aminc to extend on it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org 2010-12-20 17:16 ` Frans Meulenbroeks @ 2010-12-20 19:25 ` Maupin, Chase 2010-12-20 20:31 ` Frans Meulenbroeks 2010-12-21 8:16 ` Koen Kooi 1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Maupin, Chase @ 2010-12-20 19:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel > -----Original Message----- > From: openembedded-devel-bounces@lists.openembedded.org > [mailto:openembedded-devel-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of > Frans Meulenbroeks > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 11:17 AM > To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > Subject: Re: [oe] [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org > > Nice piece of work & a good plan but... > > Who will be the owners/maintainers of the layers? > I maintain several multimedia recipes (mythtv with all that is dragged > in (which is a.o. a lot of perl stuff), various cd* related recipes, > python-coherence and the python stuff it uses, mediatomb, and it seems > recently people seem to see me as the first line of contact if they > have musicpd issues), as well as some file sharing recipes. > Any idea on how I get them added, and how to deal with updates for these? > > An alternate approach would be to let the stuff live in poky-extras. > See this proposal from RP: > http://www.mail-archive.com/yocto@yoctoproject.org/msg00286.html Frans, What is the difference between poky-extras and angstrom-layers in regards to the intention. My understanding is that Koen wanted to put the meta-openembedded layer on OE so it would be open to anyone. Couldn't you then add recipes for the components you maintain into this layer in places like recipes-multimedia? Or are you concerned about who would maintain some of the individual recipe groupings like multimedia? i.e. if recipes-multimedia is part of meta-openembedded are you concerned that you won't be able to push changes to your recipes? I see your issue here in that you want to maintain your recipes without restriction but at the same time if everyone just puts their recipes into their own layer we would have way too many layers and it would be extremely hard to keep track of. So would a good solution be to have multiple committers to the meta-openembedded layer (like Koen was suggesting) and let each committer be a maintainer with an emphasis on a particular area (Also seems in line with what Richard was suggesting)? Perhaps I am misunderstanding the proposal here but it seems like we are really discussing whether we use poky-extras or angstrom-layers, or something with another name. I would say that we leave angstrom-layers containing the angstrom stuff, make an openembedded layer hosted on OE (like Koen suggested) rather than cramming everything into poky-extras (since poky is just one distribution and there are others). I guess an alternative suggestion is to have each functional grouping like multimedia be its own layer and then you can have one or more maintainers per layer. Then you can just group these layers under the OE name (which is basically what Richard was suggesting but calling it poky-extras). > > Frans. > > PS: personally I would have preferred it if console-image was in the > common part.I guess some other recipes will get fairly identical > recipes. > Maybe we should have a generic console-image and let each distro use > .bbappend or aminc to extend on it. > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org 2010-12-20 19:25 ` Maupin, Chase @ 2010-12-20 20:31 ` Frans Meulenbroeks 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Frans Meulenbroeks @ 2010-12-20 20:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel 2010/12/20 Maupin, Chase <chase.maupin@ti.com>: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: openembedded-devel-bounces@lists.openembedded.org >> [mailto:openembedded-devel-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of >> Frans Meulenbroeks >> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 11:17 AM >> To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org >> Subject: Re: [oe] [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org >> >> Nice piece of work & a good plan but... >> >> Who will be the owners/maintainers of the layers? >> I maintain several multimedia recipes (mythtv with all that is dragged >> in (which is a.o. a lot of perl stuff), various cd* related recipes, >> python-coherence and the python stuff it uses, mediatomb, and it seems >> recently people seem to see me as the first line of contact if they >> have musicpd issues), as well as some file sharing recipes. >> Any idea on how I get them added, and how to deal with updates for these? >> >> An alternate approach would be to let the stuff live in poky-extras. >> See this proposal from RP: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/yocto@yoctoproject.org/msg00286.html > > Frans, > > What is the difference between poky-extras and angstrom-layers in regards to the intention. My understanding is that Koen wanted to put the meta-openembedded layer on OE so it would be open to anyone. Couldn't you then add recipes for the components you maintain into this layer in places like recipes-multimedia? > > Or are you concerned about who would maintain some of the individual recipe groupings like multimedia? i.e. if recipes-multimedia is part of meta-openembedded are you concerned that you won't be able to push changes to your recipes? I see your issue here in that you want to maintain your recipes without restriction but at the same time if everyone just puts their recipes into their own layer we would have way too many layers and it would be extremely hard to keep track of. > > So would a good solution be to have multiple committers to the meta-openembedded layer (like Koen was suggesting) and let each committer be a maintainer with an emphasis on a particular area (Also seems in line with what Richard was suggesting)? > > Perhaps I am misunderstanding the proposal here but it seems like we are really discussing whether we use poky-extras or angstrom-layers, or something with another name. I would say that we leave angstrom-layers containing the angstrom stuff, make an openembedded layer hosted on OE (like Koen suggested) rather than cramming everything into poky-extras (since poky is just one distribution and there are others). > > I guess an alternative suggestion is to have each functional grouping like multimedia be its own layer and then you can have one or more maintainers per layer. Then you can just group these layers under the OE name (which is basically what Richard was suggesting but calling it poky-extras). > Chase, all, Only a brief reply as I stuck with the flu at the moment (and maybe that'll make my mails even less coherent than usual :-) ) Koen talks also about pull model and maintainers. Richards direction seems to be to have layer maintainers (who probably pull changes) This seems a good plan for the bsp and the distro layers. But I am not sure that for the oe tree a pull model would be a good step now, not even on the layer level (that is why I brought the multimedia example). Of course we could be fairly open to maintainer for a layer if we wanted to.In a sense in OE everyone can change everything, and that is no good either. I'd love to see some more info on how we propose to deal with that part. The concern I have of this proposal compared to poky-extras was that we might see the same same recipe surface at different places, which does not seem to desirable. BTW: I am seeing poky as a build system (actually iirc the official name is platform builder) not as a distro. Back to my orange juice. Frans ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org 2010-12-20 17:16 ` Frans Meulenbroeks 2010-12-20 19:25 ` Maupin, Chase @ 2010-12-21 8:16 ` Koen Kooi 2010-12-21 17:51 ` Frans Meulenbroeks 1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Koen Kooi @ 2010-12-21 8:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 20-12-10 18:16, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: > Nice piece of work & a good plan but... > > Who will be the owners/maintainers of the layers? My intention was that the meta-openembedded layer will be maintained by the people interested in it. There will be a new MAINTAINERS file inside listing who feels responsible for various recipes. > An alternate approach would be to let the stuff live in poky-extras. > See this proposal from RP: > http://www.mail-archive.com/yocto@yoctoproject.org/msg00286.html The poky-extras thing is not what I want, and more importantly, I don't want to start diluting the OE brand. regards, Koen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFNEGJWMkyGM64RGpERApHaAJ9Nk5bO08BlF40T3LH8S9ymgRFsvwCdGeQ3 WREzWeCb8t1INOGEfxILgTM= =3PyE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org 2010-12-21 8:16 ` Koen Kooi @ 2010-12-21 17:51 ` Frans Meulenbroeks 2010-12-21 18:41 ` Khem Raj ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Frans Meulenbroeks @ 2010-12-21 17:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel 2010/12/21 Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 20-12-10 18:16, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: >> Nice piece of work & a good plan but... >> >> Who will be the owners/maintainers of the layers? > > My intention was that the meta-openembedded layer will be maintained by > the people interested in it. There will be a new MAINTAINERS file inside > listing who feels responsible for various recipes. Ah ok. Seems a good plan. > >> An alternate approach would be to let the stuff live in poky-extras. >> See this proposal from RP: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/yocto@yoctoproject.org/msg00286.html > > The poky-extras thing is not what I want, and more importantly, I don't > want to start diluting the OE brand. Why wouldn't you want poky-extras? My concern is that we get lots of duplicated effort because both poky-extras and meta-openembedded might get the same recipes. Maybe this should be one of the items to be discussed with the yocto board (and maybe come to one user contributed layer). BTW it seems good to come up with some guidelines on the meta-openembedded layer (or maybe usage rules or so). E.g. personally I would expect that if I put meta-openembedded on top of e.g. poky/laverne that a recipe in it builds). So no dependencies on non poky recipes. Is that an agreed assumption? Wrt diluting the OE brand. This is a completely different topic. IMHO the mere fact that yocto exists impacts OE. Yocto also has much more resources (both people-hour wise as well as HW wise), so I strongly doubt we can compete on it wrt the quality of the base recipes. That leaves the question: Given the existence of Yocto in which parts do we see added value of OE and on which things should we as OE focus. But I guess this is more something for a different thread. Frans ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org 2010-12-21 17:51 ` Frans Meulenbroeks @ 2010-12-21 18:41 ` Khem Raj 2010-12-21 20:28 ` Marcin Juszkiewicz 2010-12-22 5:43 ` Esben Haabendal 2 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2010-12-21 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/12/21 Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 20-12-10 18:16, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: >>> Nice piece of work & a good plan but... >>> >>> Who will be the owners/maintainers of the layers? >> >> My intention was that the meta-openembedded layer will be maintained by >> the people interested in it. There will be a new MAINTAINERS file inside >> listing who feels responsible for various recipes. > > Ah ok. > Seems a good plan. >> >>> An alternate approach would be to let the stuff live in poky-extras. >>> See this proposal from RP: >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/yocto@yoctoproject.org/msg00286.html >> >> The poky-extras thing is not what I want, and more importantly, I don't >> want to start diluting the OE brand. > > Why wouldn't you want poky-extras? > My concern is that we get lots of duplicated effort because both > poky-extras and meta-openembedded might get the same recipes. > Maybe this should be one of the items to be discussed with the yocto > board (and maybe come to one user contributed layer). > duplication of recipes can occur within layers and will happen deliberately too no matter where the layer is hosted. If someone wants to override the default provided layer. its a OE layer so hosting it on OE infra is logical thing as most of OE users will look it up here. > BTW it seems good to come up with some guidelines on the > meta-openembedded layer (or maybe usage rules or so). > E.g. personally I would expect that if I put meta-openembedded on top > of e.g. poky/laverne that a recipe in it builds). > So no dependencies on non poky recipes. Is that an agreed assumption? > > Wrt diluting the OE brand. This is a completely different topic. > IMHO the mere fact that yocto exists impacts OE. It impacts but in a good way. > Yocto also has much more resources (both people-hour wise as well as > HW wise), so I strongly doubt we can compete on it wrt the quality of > the base recipes. > you take is wrongly I think. I think its a good thing for openemebedded as an architecture > That leaves the question: > Given the existence of Yocto in which parts do we see added value of > OE and on which things should we as OE focus. there is more closer collaboration needed on day to day bases to get it to work seemlessly together. You just cant say OE should focus on xyz only as yocto has openembedded at its core. > But I guess this is more something for a different thread. > > Frans > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org 2010-12-21 17:51 ` Frans Meulenbroeks 2010-12-21 18:41 ` Khem Raj @ 2010-12-21 20:28 ` Marcin Juszkiewicz 2010-12-21 21:16 ` Frans Meulenbroeks 2011-01-02 11:29 ` Frans Meulenbroeks 2010-12-22 5:43 ` Esben Haabendal 2 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Marcin Juszkiewicz @ 2010-12-21 20:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel [-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 3600 bytes --] Dnia wtorek, 21 grudnia 2010 o 18:51:25 Frans Meulenbroeks napisał(a): > 2010/12/21 Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>: > >> Nice piece of work & a good plan but... > >> Who will be the owners/maintainers of the layers? > > > > My intention was that the meta-openembedded layer will be maintained by > > the people interested in it. There will be a new MAINTAINERS file inside > > listing who feels responsible for various recipes. > Seems a good plan. I just gave on irc how I see cooperation with Yocto: - yocto-core layer - maintained by Yocto, builds always for selected targets, pull only way of providing changes - just like Poky was - oe-core layer - extra images, classes required by OE builds. Same policies as Yocto core - only pull from user branches if changes pass test builds - oe-distro-DISTRO (for those distros which needs own layers - like angstrom does) maintained by distro maintainers with their policies - oe-bsp-STH maintained by layer maintainers with their policies - oe-extra-STH (STH = opie, xfce, whatever) maintained by person/team - oe-unmaintained layer with everything not fit in layers This way we can get stable core (yocto-core + oe-core) which builds always for selected targets + layers with UI environments, multimedia, boards/soc support, etc each of them maintained by person or team. How we will split metadata into layers (and subdirs in layers) is other thing and will need to be discussed too. > >> An alternate approach would be to let the stuff live in poky-extras. > >> See this proposal from RP: > >> http://www.mail-archive.com/yocto@yoctoproject.org/msg00286.html > > > > The poky-extras thing is not what I want, and more importantly, I don't > > want to start diluting the OE brand. > > Why wouldn't you want poky-extras? > My concern is that we get lots of duplicated effort because both > poky-extras and meta-openembedded might get the same recipes. Poky-extras is part of Poky not OpenEmbedded. Our brand has 7 years and we do not want to let it disappear. This will send wrong message to people who use our work. > Wrt diluting the OE brand. This is a completely different topic. > IMHO the mere fact that yocto exists impacts OE. > Yocto also has much more resources (both people-hour wise as well as > HW wise), so I strongly doubt we can compete on it wrt the quality of > the base recipes. Thats why we should move to use Yocto as base. We have skilled developers too which can and will provide changes to yocto-core layer. But those changes will require testing before being merged which can be new thing for some of OE developers ;) > That leaves the question: > Given the existence of Yocto in which parts do we see added value of > OE and on which things should we as OE focus. OE supports more targets then Yocto does or will ever support. I do not expect Yocto to support Intel Mainstone or Simpad or even Alix.1c which I use for my router. But OE supports those machines (more or less) and this is our value. There are boards outside which boots to OpenEmbedded derived root filesystems - not Yocto or Poky but OE based. If we do proper separation of layers then who knows - maybe some vendors which base on OE will start to base on Yocto directly. But as OE will also base on Yocto then it will be not a problem to use vendor layers with our ones to provide extra packages. Regards, -- JID: hrw@jabber.org Website: http://marcin.juszkiewicz.com.pl/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinjuszkiewicz [-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org 2010-12-21 20:28 ` Marcin Juszkiewicz @ 2010-12-21 21:16 ` Frans Meulenbroeks 2011-01-02 11:29 ` Frans Meulenbroeks 1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Frans Meulenbroeks @ 2010-12-21 21:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel Marcin, thanks for the good post! 2010/12/21 Marcin Juszkiewicz <marcin@juszkiewicz.com.pl>: > Dnia wtorek, 21 grudnia 2010 o 18:51:25 Frans Meulenbroeks napisał(a): >> 2010/12/21 Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>: >> >> Nice piece of work & a good plan but... >> >> Who will be the owners/maintainers of the layers? >> > >> > My intention was that the meta-openembedded layer will be maintained by >> > the people interested in it. There will be a new MAINTAINERS file inside >> > listing who feels responsible for various recipes. > >> Seems a good plan. > > I just gave on irc how I see cooperation with Yocto: > > - yocto-core layer - maintained by Yocto, builds always for selected targets, > pull only way of providing changes - just like Poky was > - oe-core layer - extra images, classes required by OE builds. Same policies Good plan. I guess we need to decide on the procedure for something to get in. I would propose that we maintain a version policy similar to yocto (if I recall correctly what RP wrote about it, it was e.g. preferably only one version of a recipe and keeping a fairly close tracking of new versions, forgot the other wise words he said on the topic). The key probem to me seems to be how to deal with new versions of e.g. libs. Toolchain changed will probably be driven by yocto. And ofc we need a volunteer (or some) to pull, verify that it works etc) > as Yocto core - only pull from user branches if changes pass test builds > - oe-distro-DISTRO (for those distros which needs own layers - like angstrom > does) maintained by distro maintainers with their policies > - oe-bsp-STH maintained by layer maintainers with their policies > - oe-extra-STH (STH = opie, xfce, whatever) maintained by person/team > - oe-unmaintained layer with everything not fit in layers Seems a nice split to me. > > This way we can get stable core (yocto-core + oe-core) which builds always for > selected targets + layers with UI environments, multimedia, boards/soc > support, etc each of them maintained by person or team. How we will split > metadata into layers (and subdirs in layers) is other thing and will need to > be discussed too. I can also imagine testing comes around the corner here. E.g. the OE-core maintainer pulls/picks changes, gives it a testing tag then some people fire off testing builds, if these are all ok, the changes get promoted. But ofc we can also think about other scenarios. (or maybe instead of testing we have a core-next layer that is promoted to core once testing is succesful. > >> >> An alternate approach would be to let the stuff live in poky-extras. >> >> See this proposal from RP: >> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/yocto@yoctoproject.org/msg00286.html >> > >> > The poky-extras thing is not what I want, and more importantly, I don't >> > want to start diluting the OE brand. >> >> Why wouldn't you want poky-extras? >> My concern is that we get lots of duplicated effort because both >> poky-extras and meta-openembedded might get the same recipes. > > Poky-extras is part of Poky not OpenEmbedded. Our brand has 7 years and we do > not want to let it disappear. This will send wrong message to people who use > our work. I agree on that.But it must be clear what our added value is. > >> Wrt diluting the OE brand. This is a completely different topic. >> IMHO the mere fact that yocto exists impacts OE. >> Yocto also has much more resources (both people-hour wise as well as >> HW wise), so I strongly doubt we can compete on it wrt the quality of >> the base recipes. > > Thats why we should move to use Yocto as base. We have skilled developers too > which can and will provide changes to yocto-core layer. But those changes will > require testing before being merged which can be new thing for some of OE > developers ;) Agree. > >> That leaves the question: >> Given the existence of Yocto in which parts do we see added value of >> OE and on which things should we as OE focus. > > OE supports more targets then Yocto does or will ever support. I do not expect > Yocto to support Intel Mainstone or Simpad or even Alix.1c which I use for my > router. But OE supports those machines (more or less) and this is our value. > There are boards outside which boots to OpenEmbedded derived root filesystems > - not Yocto or Poky but OE based. I agree. Actually I have a few of these boards myself. But we're more than a bunch of BSP layers. (I don't think we disagree on this :-) ) > > If we do proper separation of layers then who knows - maybe some vendors which > base on OE will start to base on Yocto directly. But as OE will also base on > Yocto then it will be not a problem to use vendor layers with our ones to > provide extra packages. Sure. I might even work for such a company! Frans ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org 2010-12-21 20:28 ` Marcin Juszkiewicz 2010-12-21 21:16 ` Frans Meulenbroeks @ 2011-01-02 11:29 ` Frans Meulenbroeks 1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Frans Meulenbroeks @ 2011-01-02 11:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel There hasn't been too much discussion on Marcin's proposal below (maybe lots of people enjoyed a good Xmas holiday!) I still feel Marcin's proposal is a good plan. Do we want to move this way? If so, what about some action? Frans 2010/12/21 Marcin Juszkiewicz <marcin@juszkiewicz.com.pl>: > Dnia wtorek, 21 grudnia 2010 o 18:51:25 Frans Meulenbroeks napisał(a): >> 2010/12/21 Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>: >> >> Nice piece of work & a good plan but... >> >> Who will be the owners/maintainers of the layers? >> > >> > My intention was that the meta-openembedded layer will be maintained by >> > the people interested in it. There will be a new MAINTAINERS file inside >> > listing who feels responsible for various recipes. > >> Seems a good plan. > > I just gave on irc how I see cooperation with Yocto: > > - yocto-core layer - maintained by Yocto, builds always for selected targets, > pull only way of providing changes - just like Poky was > - oe-core layer - extra images, classes required by OE builds. Same policies > as Yocto core - only pull from user branches if changes pass test builds > - oe-distro-DISTRO (for those distros which needs own layers - like angstrom > does) maintained by distro maintainers with their policies > - oe-bsp-STH maintained by layer maintainers with their policies > - oe-extra-STH (STH = opie, xfce, whatever) maintained by person/team > - oe-unmaintained layer with everything not fit in layers > > This way we can get stable core (yocto-core + oe-core) which builds always for > selected targets + layers with UI environments, multimedia, boards/soc > support, etc each of them maintained by person or team. How we will split > metadata into layers (and subdirs in layers) is other thing and will need to > be discussed too. > >> >> An alternate approach would be to let the stuff live in poky-extras. >> >> See this proposal from RP: >> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/yocto@yoctoproject.org/msg00286.html >> > >> > The poky-extras thing is not what I want, and more importantly, I don't >> > want to start diluting the OE brand. >> >> Why wouldn't you want poky-extras? >> My concern is that we get lots of duplicated effort because both >> poky-extras and meta-openembedded might get the same recipes. > > Poky-extras is part of Poky not OpenEmbedded. Our brand has 7 years and we do > not want to let it disappear. This will send wrong message to people who use > our work. > >> Wrt diluting the OE brand. This is a completely different topic. >> IMHO the mere fact that yocto exists impacts OE. >> Yocto also has much more resources (both people-hour wise as well as >> HW wise), so I strongly doubt we can compete on it wrt the quality of >> the base recipes. > > Thats why we should move to use Yocto as base. We have skilled developers too > which can and will provide changes to yocto-core layer. But those changes will > require testing before being merged which can be new thing for some of OE > developers ;) > >> That leaves the question: >> Given the existence of Yocto in which parts do we see added value of >> OE and on which things should we as OE focus. > > OE supports more targets then Yocto does or will ever support. I do not expect > Yocto to support Intel Mainstone or Simpad or even Alix.1c which I use for my > router. But OE supports those machines (more or less) and this is our value. > There are boards outside which boots to OpenEmbedded derived root filesystems > - not Yocto or Poky but OE based. > > If we do proper separation of layers then who knows - maybe some vendors which > base on OE will start to base on Yocto directly. But as OE will also base on > Yocto then it will be not a problem to use vendor layers with our ones to > provide extra packages. > > Regards, > -- > JID: hrw@jabber.org > Website: http://marcin.juszkiewicz.com.pl/ > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinjuszkiewicz > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org 2010-12-21 17:51 ` Frans Meulenbroeks 2010-12-21 18:41 ` Khem Raj 2010-12-21 20:28 ` Marcin Juszkiewicz @ 2010-12-22 5:43 ` Esben Haabendal 2 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Esben Haabendal @ 2010-12-22 5:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 18:51 +0100, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: > That leaves the question: > Given the existence of Yocto in which parts do we see added value of > OE and on which things should we as OE focus. > But I guess this is more something for a different thread. With or without Yocto, it seems like a good question to ask what we would like to see improved in OE, ie. what would we like to see go into OE within the next 1-2 years. With that in mind, it should be somewhat easier to find out how to guide OE community directions with relation to Yocto project. I personally have the feeling that Yocto project have been given the man-power to brute-force improve the quality of Poky/OpenEmbedded on a day-by-day basis, and I expect they will be doing a good job at that. One attractive direction of OE development would in my opinion to look a bit further into the future, and work on fundamental improvements on selected focus areas. I imagine that Yocto will be expected to deliver continuous stream of improvements to Poky, and will in practise be restricted to development in microsteps of improvements. Any improvements to OE that will require a break in this continous stream is therefore something that OE might be able to add value compared to what Yocto will deliver. Of-course, I might just be beating a dead horse... /Esben ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org 2010-12-20 15:53 [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org Koen Kooi 2010-12-20 16:56 ` Graeme Gregory @ 2010-12-21 9:45 ` Khem Raj 2010-12-21 18:48 ` Tom Rini 2010-12-21 15:43 ` Cliff Brake 2010-12-22 11:19 ` Koen Kooi 3 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2010-12-21 9:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > I've locally split > http://gitorious.org/angstrom/angstrom-layers/commits/master into 3 > seperate git repos with git-filter-branch. I would like to move the > meta-openembedded layer to the OE git server to make it easier for > others to help in cleaning it up and getting more use to layers. The > beagle and angstrom layers could move there as well, but those will need > a more restricted set of committers. > > In essence I would like this to be the "official" OE layer for yocto > while the board is dealing with the yocto negotiations. > yes this is something what we should do. We need to setup gitolite on the git server first which will give us finer control on access types. Cliff has been working on it. > This would be a good chance to try out things like 'maintainers' and > 'pull requests' if we wanted to :) > yes this would be the intended model thereafter. > regards, > > Koen > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) > > iD8DBQFND3wGMkyGM64RGpERAspRAKCQS+ZtZqw/my9oTZ8l+O4KqD+WDQCcDeij > 7XzhyxcmFBpGtwWwGZC7QT0= > =EH9g > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org 2010-12-21 9:45 ` Khem Raj @ 2010-12-21 18:48 ` Tom Rini 2010-12-21 19:25 ` Cliff Brake 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Tom Rini @ 2010-12-21 18:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel On 12/21/2010 02:45 AM, Khem Raj wrote: > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Koen Kooi<k.kooi@student.utwente.nl> wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Hi, >> >> I've locally split >> http://gitorious.org/angstrom/angstrom-layers/commits/master into 3 >> seperate git repos with git-filter-branch. I would like to move the >> meta-openembedded layer to the OE git server to make it easier for >> others to help in cleaning it up and getting more use to layers. The >> beagle and angstrom layers could move there as well, but those will need >> a more restricted set of committers. >> >> In essence I would like this to be the "official" OE layer for yocto >> while the board is dealing with the yocto negotiations. >> > > yes this is something what we should do. We need to setup gitolite on > the git server Can I just put in my 2 cents for some github love? Chris got me started using it and I'm quite happy. It'd also be less admin work and since I forked Chris' tree, my space usage is still practically nil (I'm not sure about his), so the free accounts are fine. -- Tom Rini Mentor Graphics Corporation ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org 2010-12-21 18:48 ` Tom Rini @ 2010-12-21 19:25 ` Cliff Brake 2010-12-21 20:39 ` Chris Larson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Cliff Brake @ 2010-12-21 19:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote: >> yes this is something what we should do. We need to setup gitolite on >> the git server > > Can I just put in my 2 cents for some github love? Chris got me started > using it and I'm quite happy. It'd also be less admin work and since I > forked Chris' tree, my space usage is still practically nil (I'm not sure > about his), so the free accounts are fine. I'm sure our gitserver will never compare to github in features, but it seems like there is a fundamental limit in that github cannot possible host every git repo on the planet, especially for larger projects like OE where you have a lot of people pulling. I think there is some value in: 1) hosting OE at openembedded.org (branding, professional image, etc). That said, I realize that companies like Nokia are hosting their stuff on gitorious (http://qt.gitorious.org/), so perhaps this is not an issue, though its likely Nokia is funding Gitorious to obtain bandwidth, etc. 2) we are more in control of bandwidth, locations, etc. We have a lot of checkouts from our repo, and other than some problems in Europe, I think our availability has been reasonably good. I don't know if these benefits outweigh those provided by github. Perhaps some others can share experiences. Cliff -- ================= http://bec-systems.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org 2010-12-21 19:25 ` Cliff Brake @ 2010-12-21 20:39 ` Chris Larson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Chris Larson @ 2010-12-21 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Cliff Brake <cliff.brake@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com> wrote: > >>> yes this is something what we should do. We need to setup gitolite on >>> the git server >> >> Can I just put in my 2 cents for some github love? Chris got me started >> using it and I'm quite happy. It'd also be less admin work and since I >> forked Chris' tree, my space usage is still practically nil (I'm not sure >> about his), so the free accounts are fine. > > I'm sure our gitserver will never compare to github in features, but > it seems like there is a fundamental limit in that github cannot > possible host every git repo on the planet, especially for larger > projects like OE where you have a lot of people pulling. I think > there is some value in: Like Tom says, each user has a limit of what they can store with a free account. Any single git repository doesn't take much space. When someone wants to do some personal work, they fork the upstream repo into theirs (so they now have a single copy of the oe repository in their account), and they work there. I don't think space is much of a concern. The other points, about branding, etc are valid. -- Christopher Larson clarson at kergoth dot com Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus Maintainer - Tslib Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org 2010-12-20 15:53 [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org Koen Kooi 2010-12-20 16:56 ` Graeme Gregory 2010-12-21 9:45 ` Khem Raj @ 2010-12-21 15:43 ` Cliff Brake 2010-12-21 16:25 ` Koen Kooi 2010-12-22 11:19 ` Koen Kooi 3 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Cliff Brake @ 2010-12-21 15:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl> wrote: > I've locally split > http://gitorious.org/angstrom/angstrom-layers/commits/master into 3 > seperate git repos with git-filter-branch. I would like to move the > meta-openembedded layer to the OE git server to make it easier for > others to help in cleaning it up and getting more use to layers. git@git.openembedded.org:meta-openembedded is now available. Note, someone will need to push something to it before it exists. Thanks, Cliff -- ================= http://bec-systems.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org 2010-12-21 15:43 ` Cliff Brake @ 2010-12-21 16:25 ` Koen Kooi 2010-12-21 21:03 ` Denys Dmytriyenko 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Koen Kooi @ 2010-12-21 16:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 21-12-10 16:43, Cliff Brake wrote: > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl> wrote: >> I've locally split >> http://gitorious.org/angstrom/angstrom-layers/commits/master into 3 >> seperate git repos with git-filter-branch. I would like to move the >> meta-openembedded layer to the OE git server to make it easier for >> others to help in cleaning it up and getting more use to layers. > > git@git.openembedded.org:meta-openembedded is now available. Note, > someone will need to push something to it before it exists. And here it is: http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/meta-openembedded/ Thanks Cliff & Tom! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFNENToMkyGM64RGpERAmZfAJ95GWNvBXjmvu7YvETrkXtP8Pa9vQCeOWUv VN2bymFBMFiTNiScPR52kWI= =xhQy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org 2010-12-21 16:25 ` Koen Kooi @ 2010-12-21 21:03 ` Denys Dmytriyenko 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Denys Dmytriyenko @ 2010-12-21 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 05:25:13PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 21-12-10 16:43, Cliff Brake wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl> wrote: > >> I've locally split > >> http://gitorious.org/angstrom/angstrom-layers/commits/master into 3 > >> seperate git repos with git-filter-branch. I would like to move the > >> meta-openembedded layer to the OE git server to make it easier for > >> others to help in cleaning it up and getting more use to layers. > > > > git@git.openembedded.org:meta-openembedded is now available. Note, > > someone will need to push something to it before it exists. > > And here it is: http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/meta-openembedded/ > > Thanks Cliff & Tom! Thanks Koen et al. for starting the work! -- Denys ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org 2010-12-20 15:53 [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org Koen Kooi ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2010-12-21 15:43 ` Cliff Brake @ 2010-12-22 11:19 ` Koen Kooi 3 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Koen Kooi @ 2010-12-22 11:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 20-12-10 16:53, Koen Kooi wrote: > Hi, > > I've locally split > http://gitorious.org/angstrom/angstrom-layers/commits/master into 3 > seperate git repos with git-filter-branch. I would like to move the > meta-openembedded layer to the OE git server to make it easier for > others to help in cleaning it up and getting more use to layers. The > beagle and angstrom layers could move there as well, but those will need > a more restricted set of committers. > > In essence I would like this to be the "official" OE layer for yocto > while the board is dealing with the yocto negotiations. Now that the repo is out there and writable for every OE committer (if I didn't mess up gitolite), the easiest way to get started is to use this script: http://gitorious.org/angstrom/angstrom-setup-scripts/commits/yoctoproject That will pull all the needed git repositories and assemble a bblayers.conf. As being discussed on the oe-members list, we desperately need a workable solution to deal with multiple git repos for layers. Personally I like Michaels approach of using a flat config file with a git uri for each layer, but I'm open to other solutions. I'm now going to read up on license checksumming, RP is going to enable the killswitch in yocto soon. regards, Koen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFNEd6sMkyGM64RGpERAoQSAKCJKYLKnbG+yKGISQgtEhmW5h8ulwCfaC5F d0zqL9aaDRM6nnGLKFLsYOU= =7ovB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-01-02 11:29 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 20+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2010-12-20 15:53 [RFC] meta-openembedded layer for yocto hosted on oe.org Koen Kooi 2010-12-20 16:56 ` Graeme Gregory 2010-12-20 17:16 ` Frans Meulenbroeks 2010-12-20 19:25 ` Maupin, Chase 2010-12-20 20:31 ` Frans Meulenbroeks 2010-12-21 8:16 ` Koen Kooi 2010-12-21 17:51 ` Frans Meulenbroeks 2010-12-21 18:41 ` Khem Raj 2010-12-21 20:28 ` Marcin Juszkiewicz 2010-12-21 21:16 ` Frans Meulenbroeks 2011-01-02 11:29 ` Frans Meulenbroeks 2010-12-22 5:43 ` Esben Haabendal 2010-12-21 9:45 ` Khem Raj 2010-12-21 18:48 ` Tom Rini 2010-12-21 19:25 ` Cliff Brake 2010-12-21 20:39 ` Chris Larson 2010-12-21 15:43 ` Cliff Brake 2010-12-21 16:25 ` Koen Kooi 2010-12-21 21:03 ` Denys Dmytriyenko 2010-12-22 11:19 ` Koen Kooi
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.