Re: Releases of BitBake to package for Fedora?

[Andre McCurdy <armccurdy@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Paul Eggleton
<paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 8:16:06 AM NZDT Andre McCurdy wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:
>> > The bitbake API isn't really stable and has a reasonable amount of change,
>> > so if you were to package it then there's a good chance it would be out of
>> > date within six months and people who wanted to use the latest oe-core
>> > release against the packaged bitbake would hit API version errors.  The
>> > recommended usage is to bundle in some way bitbake and the metadata
>> > (combo-layer, submodules, repo, whatever).
>> >
>> > As such there are no tarballs.  There are branches for each version and
>> > commits where the version is bumped, if you're really determined to
>> > package a snapshot.
>>
>> If there's no realistic hope of (or need for) using bitbake standalone
>> then maybe it's time to move bitbake into oe-core?
>
> Well, there are folks out there using bitbake with their own (non-OE)
> metadata,

Are any of those projects public? I'd be interested to see how that's
being done.

> and that is absolutely supported, so even in the absence of stable
> releases of BitBake that distros could pick up the separation does still have
> a purpose.
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
> --
>
> Paul Eggleton
> Intel Open Source Technology Centre