From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-qy0-f175.google.com ([209.85.216.175]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Pfg0w-0000f0-42 for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 22:56:27 +0100 Received: by qyk8 with SMTP id 8so1108777qyk.6 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 13:55:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.43.74 with SMTP id v10mr1020926qce.293.1295474145559; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 13:55:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.233.213 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 13:55:45 -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 13:55:45 -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 21:56:27 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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