Re: Moving angstrom under the yocto banner

[Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net>]

Op 30 mrt. 2012, om 17:28 heeft Darren Hart het volgende geschreven:

> 
> 
> On 03/30/2012 05:08 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> 
>> Op 30 mrt. 2012, om 16:52 heeft Darren Hart het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>>> On 03/30/2012 02:11 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The criteria I see for being part of the Yocto Project are:
>>>> 
>>>> a) Sharing the project's objectives (e.g. making embedded Liunx 
>>>> development easier) b) Willing to be part of the Yocto Project's
>>>> governance structure c) Bringing something new/beneficial to the
>>>> Yocto Project (often with mutual benefit) d) Have some kind of
>>>> sustainable resource plan
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I'll take a couple careful steps into this arena to offer just one
>>> more possible criteria.
>>> 
>>> One of the touted goals/advantages/benefits of using the Yocto
>>> Project is to work with a vetted set of sources that are known to
>>> all work together, having had some level of QA performed. This is
>>> something the poky repository accomplishes by bringing specifc
>>> versions of bitbake and oe-core together (along with some other
>>> tooling). At some point, this gets rolled up into a release of the
>>> Yocto Project: 0.9, 1.1, and soon 1.2. It's common for someone to
>>> refer to these release points as the base for their BSP.
>>> 
>>> It therefor seems reasonable to me for a distribution definition
>>> (which is how I think of Angstrom - but feel free to correct me
>>> Koen) to make a statement like "This release of Angstrom builds
>>> with the Yocto Project X.Y release."
>> 
>> Yes, but see below
>> 
>>> I believe this is the sort of language that most outside
>>> developers would immediately understand and associate with being
>>> part of the Yocto Project.
>> 
>> What does a 'yocto project release' actually mean? Right now it looks
>> more like a 'poky (the distro) release'. Since angstrom builds on
>> oe-core and bitbake directly the statement (in the current situation)
>> would be more like:
>> 
> 
> /me hands koen a real MUA that wraps at < 80 characters...
> and wraps his mail for him...
> 
> (everyone else gets a pass, but you?  ;-)
> 
> I see the "poky" distro definition as only a part of the poky
> repository, the naming is unfortunate, but I think we can all see past
> that for the purposes of this discussion. This is part of meta-yocto
> which will at some point be it's own repository.
> 
> So I don't agree with the assertion that it looks more like a "poky the
> distro release".

But it is the only component of the YP that gets released as part of the YP release, no?

>> "This release of angstrom builds on oe-core 2012.1, bitbake
>> 1.something.x, which matches the YP 1.x release".
> 
> 
> OK. Donning my "Yeah but I have a XYZ and things to get done" hat, I
> think people will respond more positively to:
> 
> "Download the 1.2 Yocto Project release, add meta-angstrom to your
> bblayers.conf, and build $IMAGE_TARGET"
> 
> than they will to
> 
> Download bitbake X.Y, Angstrom X.Y, OE Core X.Y, etc. instructions on
> setting up the layers, the local.conf, etc etc.
> 
> I believe there are some other details the poky repository helps out
> with (someone more familiar with working with the individual components
> would have to enumerate these, I honestly don't know what they all are).
> 
> And yes, there are the BSP layers to add to each of these scenarios, but
> that effects each equally.
> 
> All that environment setup is something that can make or break the
> initial experience. I believe lots of users appreciate not having to
> pull all the pieces together themselves. (especially those that don't
> even know what they're not having to do!)

And that's why angstrom (currently!) only supports setup using the angstrom setup-scripts. That contains all the logic that is needed to get the right versions. It also contains pretty much all known layers, so there's a high likelihood that users will never need to open bblayers.conf (either manually or using a script).

> If we move more things under the YP banner and convince subprojects
>> to adopt the same schedule, we could make statements like:
>> 
>> "The Yocto Project 1.x release consist of the following modules:
>> 
>> * bitbake 1.x * oe-core 2012.x * poky $DOTT_character * eglibc 2.17 *
>> pseudo 1.2 * angstrom 2012.04 * meta-xilinx 6.5 ... etc"
>> 
> 
> With the exception of eglibc (I wouldn't want to have to list every
> package from oe-core and the layers!) this doesn't seem out of line to me.

I was listing YP projects, not recipes/packages. I guess my point about a YP release needing to contain more than one yocto subproject got lost :(

>> I think that would make it fit better with the "umbrella project"
>> idea. "consists" might be a bad choice of words, I blame the
>> unlimited coffee refills at the diner across the street :)
> 
> 
> And I blame any perceived snarkiness on the migraine and the 4 different
> medications the doc's got me on to try and patch me up to fly on Monday ;-)

I hope you get well soon!