From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C90CD784E9 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 03:48:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2017 19:48:25 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,367,1505804400"; d="scan'208";a="171430375" Received: from skanwarx-mobl1.gar.corp.intel.com (HELO peggleto-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com) ([10.249.73.22]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2017 19:48:22 -0800 From: Paul Eggleton To: Neal Gompa Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 16:48:19 +1300 Message-ID: <8732517.rS9bQnFJfK@peggleto-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com> Organization: Intel Corporation In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: Releases of BitBake to package for Fedora? X-BeenThere: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussion that advance bitbake development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 03:48:24 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Neal, On Thursday, 9 November 2017 12:58:08 AM NZDT Neal Gompa wrote: > I'm looking reintroduce BitBake into Fedora, but it seems like there > hasn't been releases in two years. I also cannot identify anywhere > that provides tarballs of BitBake to package. > > The Fedora package previously referenced snapshot tarballs generated > by tagged releases in OE Git, but there haven't been new tagged > releases in two years. > > I'd previously asked this on oe-core ML and was redirected to > bitbake-devel, so apologies to cross-list subs. But it was also > pointed out there that apparently BitBake has moved to a model where > they don't have stable points of releases, which seems rather odd for > a tool that is used by more than OpenEmbedded. It's not that we don't have stable points - we do, it's that from the other side, each stable release of OE-Core is only tested with the corresponding stable release of BitBake, so if people start using BitBake from their distro we are probably going to have extra mismatch issues to deal with. We really ought to be tagging releases, not having done that is an oversight but it's reflective of the current typical usage. It would be nice to get some exposure of BitBake as a standalone tool, and having it packaged by distros might be one way to help that, but my concern for OE usage would be that when this has been done in the past we have had situations where BitBake from the distro has been older than needed by OE-Core and users end up having to fetch it themselves anyway, so we'd have to have a strategy for handling that. (This is not necessarily an official answer - I'd be interested to hear what RP and others have to say about it.) Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre