From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-vw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.212.47]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Pfg67-00018H-4M for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 23:01:47 +0100 Received: by vws6 with SMTP id 6so626782vws.6 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:01:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.240.198 with SMTP id lb6mr989527qcb.255.1295474463408; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:01:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.233.213 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:01:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1295027350.14388.6527.camel@rex> <4D353F81.50301@xora.org.uk> <4D35C5C3.60205@mentor.com> <4D35FC8B.1090404@mentor.com> <4D36A64E.9060804@xora.org.uk> <1295436662.2540.14.camel@scimitar> <4D36FE98.3070606@mwester.net> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:01:03 -0800 Message-ID: From: C Michael Sundius To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.11 Subject: Re: Yocto Project and OE - Where now? X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 22:01:47 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 in rereading this I don't want to seem ungrateful, since we've certainly benefited from the great effort on everyones part (package and distro maintainers, yacto and OE... everyone). On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:55 PM, C Michael Sundius wrote: > > It seems to me that this is a bit of a battle between the package > maintainers and the distro maintainers.. Looking at this from my managements > side of things, we use OE as a tool and its really just a means to the end. > our customers demand that we do not change things (versions of software), > they demand stability and they view a change in busybox or anything else a > threat to stability. our management has also made an edict that we can not > use gplv3. For completely non technical reasons we simply cannot move to new > package versions without a substantial business justification. I suspect > that that there are many (more than you realize) folk out there who are > using OE for their own distro. If you simply whack package versions because > something newer came out you will have these people maintaining separate > recipes and we'll be swamped with the load and this tool will loose one of > its best attributes. > > The comment that disturbed me was that distros should just move ahead > "because its making things hard for the package maintainer". That doesn't > wash with me because if people are using your package then you should > support it or let someone else be the maintainer. In essence the distro's > use of that package are your customers and the reason you have a job. OE > does not exist as a product, rather a tool that enables customers, you can't > create this in a vacuum without understanding who is using it. > > distro maintainers are not all dumb and if they are they'll be the last > single one using an outdated version of the software. When that happens a > smart package maintainer will call it out leave out the old package. > Further, it would be nice for a warning to take place so that it might have > a "depracated" tag associated with the recipe for one release cycle to see > if anyone cribs. > > So I'm standing with the guy w/ asbestos short on. I'd like to see that OE > err on the side of "do no harm" to existing users. Its hard enough to rally > the troops to move to updated packages much less updated meta without you > leaving perfectly reasonable versions of software out of oe-core. > > mike > >