From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id AA9EBE00BEB; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 07:47:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider * (maxim.radugin[at]gmail.com) * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low * trust * [74.125.82.179 listed in list.dnswl.org] * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's * domain * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature Received: from mail-we0-f179.google.com (mail-we0-f179.google.com [74.125.82.179]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C92FBE00B78 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 07:47:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f179.google.com with SMTP id w62so3138067wes.38 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 07:47:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=VDHQer1esVa5FOJu4SSzQrnhEZu5H4EkzIX/xNjsUZA=; b=lVBgyA2zDvI2GOE6BZTL/AB3D6t1jqR2UoQcc413YDFFjSJ2/Q6HBWjBSBP9496WRj ch5p8im848tL2CT5ZWqVI/viLHZH8hWWET6eQ8nIGfWinxMKZNPVGD59A3ZeW4fYFYpo bSzt/Kh0Vh/doriYIy24S30vHXvK88DHY7Vybbe07HEVqadzLqUUyZRfkM6t5PY1xP0m a/eVUUYGGx5L3RQcHJ6wGtbC645rQV8zZbvJ6HK/5YU2LM9YdfaAO39lQQmeCdSJHMIT G25HTF20y07PFH8hfOZY43tP9F3RUS/vrx0mesPTaq/5QxoGNUcmeTjCR7GIl5PrLcDz irDg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.228.39 with SMTP id sf7mr36926557wic.26.1402411660748; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 07:47:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.88.69 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 07:47:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1402354370.9385.9.camel@marlon-Z68X-UD3H-B3> References: <1402354370.9385.9.camel@marlon-Z68X-UD3H-B3> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:47:40 +0300 Message-ID: From: Maxim Radugin To: Marlon Smith Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: Why use Yocto? X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:47:43 -0000 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134d18ade2c4204fb7c687f --001a1134d18ade2c4204fb7c687f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Marlon, Some more points to vote for yocto: 1) ability to switch to another board easily (even with different arch) just by switching the BSP layer and optionally doing some kernel and bootloader config; 2) you can switch between package versions you want to use, plus fine-tune and patch them for your specific needs; As the downside of Yocto I can mention that "baking" process is quite time and resource intensive. BR, Maxim. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Marlon Smith wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I'm developing a product that will run on a custom i.MX6 board and I'm > trying to decide whether to use Yocto or Ubuntu (there's a version of > Ubuntu packaged for the Wandboard that will run on our board). The board > will run our own custom app, and we'll modify the Linux kernel to support > our hardware. > > Ubuntu seems like it would be ready to go - just put it on an SD card, > boot the board, compile the app and create a new SD card image from the > result to use for manufacturing. > > Yocto seems like it would be easier to remove unneeded packages from, and > easier to cross-compile the application for. This means we could have a > smaller SD card image in the end. > > What are your thoughts on this? > > Thanks > > Marlon > > -- > _______________________________________________ > yocto mailing list > yocto@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto > > --001a1134d18ade2c4204fb7c687f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Marlon,

Some more points to vote for= yocto:
1) ability to switch to another board easily (even with d= ifferent arch) just=C2=A0by=C2=A0switching the BSP layer and optionally doi= ng some kernel and bootloader config;
2) you can switch between package versions you want to use, plus fine-= tune and patch them for your specific needs;=C2=A0

As the downside of Yocto I can mention that "baking" = process is quite time and resource intensive.

BR,
Maxim.

On Tue, J= un 10, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Marlon Smith <marlon.smith10@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:
=20 =20
Hi everyone,

I'm developing a product that will run on a custom i.MX6 board and I= 9;m trying to decide whether to use Yocto or Ubuntu (there's a version = of Ubuntu packaged for the Wandboard that will run on our board).=C2=A0 The= board will run our own custom app, and we'll modify the Linux kernel t= o support our hardware.

Ubuntu seems like it would be ready to go - just put it on an SD card, boot= the board, compile the app and create a new SD card image from the result = to use for manufacturing.

Yocto seems like it would be easier to remove unneeded packages from, and e= asier to cross-compile the application for.=C2=A0 This means we could have = a smaller SD card image in the end.

What are your thoughts on this?

Thanks

Marlon

--
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto


--001a1134d18ade2c4204fb7c687f--