[cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby

[cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby

[Nobuhiro Iwamatsu]

Hi, Daniel.

I have a question about about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby.

The meta-debian branch used by cip-core/deby  is morty.
It provides debian 8 packages in OE/recipe. Is there any reason to
choose morty/debian 8?
Is the reason why the mata-debian master branch is still in development?
Will you/we switch to the master branch when Debian 10 is released?

Best regards,
  Nobuhiro

[cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby

[daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp]

Iwamatsu-san,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <nobuhiro.iwamatsu@miraclelinux.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 4:38 PM
> To: sangorrin daniel(????? ???? ????????) <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>
> Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> Subject: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> 
> Hi, Daniel.
> 
> I have a question about about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby.
> 
> The meta-debian branch used by cip-core/deby  is morty.
> It provides debian 8 packages in OE/recipe. Is there any reason to
> choose morty/debian 8?
> Is the reason why the mata-debian master branch is still in development?
> Will you/we switch to the master branch when Debian 10 is released?

Yes, that's correct.

Thanks,
Daniel

[cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby

[kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp]

Iwamatsu-san, Daniel,

> > It provides debian 8 packages in OE/recipe. Is there any reason to
> > choose morty/debian 8?
In my understanding, this is the initial repository which was created
when the master branch (Debian 10 based) didn't exist yet.
We are planning to update it to the current master branch.

I have another question about how to do that.
Should we keep the morty branch and add contents of master to another cip-core branch,
or just replace the morty by the master?

Regards,
Kazu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org
> [mailto:cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org] On Behalf Of
> daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 2:52 PM
> To: nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> Subject: Re: [cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> 
> Iwamatsu-san,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <nobuhiro.iwamatsu@miraclelinux.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 4:38 PM
> > To: sangorrin daniel(????? ???? ????????)
> <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>
> > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > Subject: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> >
> > Hi, Daniel.
> >
> > I have a question about about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby.
> >
> > The meta-debian branch used by cip-core/deby  is morty.
> > It provides debian 8 packages in OE/recipe. Is there any reason to
> > choose morty/debian 8?
> > Is the reason why the mata-debian master branch is still in development?
> > Will you/we switch to the master branch when Debian 10 is released?
> 
> Yes, that's correct.
> 
> Thanks,
> Daniel
> _______________________________________________
> cip-dev mailing list
> cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev

[cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby

[Kazuhiro Fujita]

Hello Hayashi-san,

> Should we keep the morty branch and add contents of master to another cip-
> core branch, or just replace the morty by the master?

In case the morty branch will be replaced by the master, current users
will automatically switch to the master without knowing the change?

Regards,
Fujita


> -----Original Message-----
> From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org <cip-dev-bounces@lists.cip-
> project.org> On Behalf Of kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 7:09 PM
> To: daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp; nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> Subject: Re: [cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> 
> Iwamatsu-san, Daniel,
> 
> > > It provides debian 8 packages in OE/recipe. Is there any reason to
> > > choose morty/debian 8?
> In my understanding, this is the initial repository which was created
> when the master branch (Debian 10 based) didn't exist yet.
> We are planning to update it to the current master branch.
> 
> I have another question about how to do that.
> Should we keep the morty branch and add contents of master to another cip-
> core branch,
> or just replace the morty by the master?
> 
> Regards,
> Kazu
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org
> > [mailto:cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org] On Behalf Of
> > daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp
> > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 2:52 PM
> > To: nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > Subject: Re: [cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> >
> > Iwamatsu-san,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <nobuhiro.iwamatsu@miraclelinux.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 4:38 PM
> > > To: sangorrin daniel(????? ???? ????????)
> > <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>
> > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > Subject: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > >
> > > Hi, Daniel.
> > >
> > > I have a question about about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby.
> > >
> > > The meta-debian branch used by cip-core/deby  is morty.
> > > It provides debian 8 packages in OE/recipe. Is there any reason to
> > > choose morty/debian 8?
> > > Is the reason why the mata-debian master branch is still in
> development?
> > > Will you/we switch to the master branch when Debian 10 is released?
> >
> > Yes, that's correct.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Daniel
> > _______________________________________________
> > cip-dev mailing list
> > cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev
> _______________________________________________
> cip-dev mailing list
> cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev

[cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby

[SZ Lin (林上智)]

Hi,
<daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp> ? 2019?3?14? ?? ??1:53???
>
> Iwamatsu-san,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <nobuhiro.iwamatsu@miraclelinux.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 4:38 PM
> > To: sangorrin daniel(????? ???? ????????) <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>
> > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > Subject: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> >
> > Hi, Daniel.
> >
> > I have a question about about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby.
> >
> > The meta-debian branch used by cip-core/deby  is morty.
> > It provides debian 8 packages in OE/recipe. Is there any reason to
> > choose morty/debian 8?
> > Is the reason why the mata-debian master branch is still in development?
> > Will you/we switch to the master branch when Debian 10 is released?
>
> Yes, that's correct.

In CIP IRC meeting yesterday, Fujita-san mentioned that CIP-testing is
using Debian 8 now [1].

F.Y.I.

[1] https://irclogs.baserock.org/meetings/cip/2019/03/cip.2019-03-14-09.00.log.html#l-78

SZ

>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
> _______________________________________________
> cip-dev mailing list
> cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev

[cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby

[kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp]

Hello Fujita-san,
CC: Jan

> In case the morty branch will be replaced by the master, current users
> will automatically switch to the master without knowing the change?
No, user can not automatically migrate from morty to master without knowing the changes
because several specifications about recipe development has been deferent between them.

Therefore, regarding deby repository, it would be better to provide branches
"morty" and "master" as follows:
	Current                  New
	master(poky:morty-based) => morty
	-                        => master(poky:master-based)
	jethro                   => remove? (no longer maintained in meta-debian)

I would like to know if we need to the common branch name in cip-core.
For example: cip-core-v1(4.4+Debian8/9?), cip-core-v2(4.19+Debian10), ...

If the both tiny(deby) and generic profile(isar) are based on the same
CIP kernel and Debian versions, we can use such common branch name above.
If not, or no benefit for users to use the common branch name, 
I would like to simply use "morty" and "master" in deby repository.

Kind regards,
Kazu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kazuhiro Fujita [mailto:kazuhiro.fujita.jg at renesas.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 11:39 AM
> To: hayashi kazuhiro(? ?? ????????)
> <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>; sangorrin daniel(????? ????
> ????????) <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>;
> nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> 
> Hello Hayashi-san,
> 
> > Should we keep the morty branch and add contents of master to another
> cip-
> > core branch, or just replace the morty by the master?
> 
> In case the morty branch will be replaced by the master, current users
> will automatically switch to the master without knowing the change?
> 
> Regards,
> Fujita
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org
> <cip-dev-bounces@lists.cip-
> > project.org> On Behalf Of kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp
> > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 7:09 PM
> > To: daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp; nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > Subject: Re: [cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> >
> > Iwamatsu-san, Daniel,
> >
> > > > It provides debian 8 packages in OE/recipe. Is there any reason to
> > > > choose morty/debian 8?
> > In my understanding, this is the initial repository which was created
> > when the master branch (Debian 10 based) didn't exist yet.
> > We are planning to update it to the current master branch.
> >
> > I have another question about how to do that.
> > Should we keep the morty branch and add contents of master to another
> cip-
> > core branch,
> > or just replace the morty by the master?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kazu
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org
> > > [mailto:cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org] On Behalf Of
> > > daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 2:52 PM
> > > To: nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > Subject: Re: [cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > >
> > > Iwamatsu-san,
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <nobuhiro.iwamatsu@miraclelinux.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 4:38 PM
> > > > To: sangorrin daniel(????? ???? ????????)
> > > <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>
> > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > Subject: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > >
> > > > Hi, Daniel.
> > > >
> > > > I have a question about about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby.
> > > >
> > > > The meta-debian branch used by cip-core/deby  is morty.
> > > > It provides debian 8 packages in OE/recipe. Is there any reason to
> > > > choose morty/debian 8?
> > > > Is the reason why the mata-debian master branch is still in
> > development?
> > > > Will you/we switch to the master branch when Debian 10 is released?
> > >
> > > Yes, that's correct.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Daniel
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cip-dev mailing list
> > > cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > cip-dev mailing list
> > cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev

[cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby

[Kazuhiro Fujita]

Hello Hayashi-san,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 10:52 AM
> To: Kazuhiro Fujita <kazuhiro.fujita.jg@renesas.com>;
> daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp; nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> Cc: jan.kiszka at siemens.com; cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> 
> Hello Fujita-san,
> CC: Jan
> 
> > In case the morty branch will be replaced by the master, current users
> > will automatically switch to the master without knowing the change?
> No, user can not automatically migrate from morty to master without
> knowing the changes
> because several specifications about recipe development has been deferent
> between them.
> 
> Therefore, regarding deby repository, it would be better to provide
> branches

Agreed.

> "morty" and "master" as follows:
> 	Current                  New
> 	master(poky:morty-based) => morty
> 	-                        => master(poky:master-based)
> 	jethro                   => remove? (no longer maintained in meta-
> debian)
> 
> I would like to know if we need to the common branch name in cip-core.
> For example: cip-core-v1(4.4+Debian8/9?), cip-core-v2(4.19+Debian10), ...

Common branch name like cip-core-xx will help many users to understand 
which branch they should use.

However, it may not clear CIP has decided or not that each kernel 
version sticks to specific version of the other OSSs.
Some people around me say that OSSs included in cip-core will keep 
these versions and maintained by CIP.
For example, they believe openssl 1.0.1t will be used when kernel 
4.4-cip is running.
This may not right assumption.

Is there any material explaining the update policy of cip-core?

> 
> If the both tiny(deby) and generic profile(isar) are based on the same
> CIP kernel and Debian versions, we can use such common branch name above.
> If not, or no benefit for users to use the common branch name,
> I would like to simply use "morty" and "master" in deby repository.

Using different version for tiny and generic may be confusing.
In my opinion, tiny should be the subset of generic profile.

Kind regards,
Fujita


> 
> Kind regards,
> Kazu
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kazuhiro Fujita [mailto:kazuhiro.fujita.jg at renesas.com]
> > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 11:39 AM
> > To: hayashi kazuhiro(? ?? ????????)
> > <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>; sangorrin daniel(????? ????
> > ????????) <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>;
> > nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> >
> > Hello Hayashi-san,
> >
> > > Should we keep the morty branch and add contents of master to another
> > cip-
> > > core branch, or just replace the morty by the master?
> >
> > In case the morty branch will be replaced by the master, current users
> > will automatically switch to the master without knowing the change?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Fujita
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org
> > <cip-dev-bounces@lists.cip-
> > > project.org> On Behalf Of kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 7:09 PM
> > > To: daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp; nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > Subject: Re: [cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > >
> > > Iwamatsu-san, Daniel,
> > >
> > > > > It provides debian 8 packages in OE/recipe. Is there any reason to
> > > > > choose morty/debian 8?
> > > In my understanding, this is the initial repository which was created
> > > when the master branch (Debian 10 based) didn't exist yet.
> > > We are planning to update it to the current master branch.
> > >
> > > I have another question about how to do that.
> > > Should we keep the morty branch and add contents of master to another
> > cip-
> > > core branch,
> > > or just replace the morty by the master?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Kazu
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > [mailto:cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org] On Behalf Of
> > > > daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 2:52 PM
> > > > To: nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > >
> > > > Iwamatsu-san,
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <nobuhiro.iwamatsu@miraclelinux.com>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 4:38 PM
> > > > > To: sangorrin daniel(????? ???? ????????)
> > > > <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>
> > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > Subject: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, Daniel.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a question about about branch of meta-debian in cip-
> core/deby.
> > > > >
> > > > > The meta-debian branch used by cip-core/deby  is morty.
> > > > > It provides debian 8 packages in OE/recipe. Is there any reason to
> > > > > choose morty/debian 8?
> > > > > Is the reason why the mata-debian master branch is still in
> > > development?
> > > > > Will you/we switch to the master branch when Debian 10 is
> released?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that's correct.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Daniel
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > cip-dev mailing list
> > > > cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cip-dev mailing list
> > > cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev

[cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby

[kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp]

Dear Fujita-san, and CIP-core members

Sorry for my late reply, but I would like to re-open this discussion
to prepare uploading the latest Deby to cip-core repository.

> However, it may not clear CIP has decided or not that each kernel
> version sticks to specific version of the other OSSs.
> Some people around me say that OSSs included in cip-core will keep
> these versions and maintained by CIP.
> For example, they believe openssl 1.0.1t will be used when kernel
> 4.4-cip is running.
> This may not right assumption.
> 
> Is there any material explaining the update policy of cip-core?

I have not seen such policy.
Probably, it has not been clarified yet.

In my understanding, the targets of CIP(-core)'s support are the followings at least:

Kernel:
	linux-4.4.y-cip & -rt
	linux-4.19.y-cip & -rt
Debian:
	Debian 8 (jessie)
	Debian 9 (stretch)
	Debian 10 (buster)
	... and every version in future

However, I think that there is no decision in CIP about the combination of
the above kernel versions and Debian versions, which should be supported by CIP.
This implicitly shows that all combinations could be supported, but
it's quite hard to test and maintain all of them.
I guess that the practical version combinations are very limited actually.

I would like to confirm opinions about this in Isar later.

> >
> > If the both tiny(deby) and generic profile(isar) are based on the same
> > CIP kernel and Debian versions, we can use such common branch name above.
> > If not, or no benefit for users to use the common branch name,
> > I would like to simply use "morty" and "master" in deby repository.
> 
> Using different version for tiny and generic may be confusing.
> In my opinion, tiny should be the subset of generic profile.

Thank you for your opinion.
Regarding the supported package list, I agree that tiny should be subset of generic.
In order to use the common version (branch name) in tiny and generic,
and to concentrate our efforts on well-used cases,,
we need to make a decision about the supported version combinations between CIP kernel and Debian.

Regards,
Kazu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kazuhiro Fujita [mailto:kazuhiro.fujita.jg at renesas.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 2:52 PM
> To: hayashi kazuhiro(? ?? ????????)
> <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>; sangorrin daniel(????? ????
> ????????) <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>;
> nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> Cc: jan.kiszka at siemens.com; cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> 
> Hello Hayashi-san,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp
> <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>
> > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 10:52 AM
> > To: Kazuhiro Fujita <kazuhiro.fujita.jg@renesas.com>;
> > daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp; nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > Cc: jan.kiszka at siemens.com; cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> >
> > Hello Fujita-san,
> > CC: Jan
> >
> > > In case the morty branch will be replaced by the master, current users
> > > will automatically switch to the master without knowing the change?
> > No, user can not automatically migrate from morty to master without
> > knowing the changes
> > because several specifications about recipe development has been deferent
> > between them.
> >
> > Therefore, regarding deby repository, it would be better to provide
> > branches
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > "morty" and "master" as follows:
> > 	Current                  New
> > 	master(poky:morty-based) => morty
> > 	-                        => master(poky:master-based)
> > 	jethro                   => remove? (no longer maintained in
> meta-
> > debian)
> >
> > I would like to know if we need to the common branch name in cip-core.
> > For example: cip-core-v1(4.4+Debian8/9?),
> cip-core-v2(4.19+Debian10), ...
> 
> Common branch name like cip-core-xx will help many users to understand
> which branch they should use.
> 
> However, it may not clear CIP has decided or not that each kernel
> version sticks to specific version of the other OSSs.
> Some people around me say that OSSs included in cip-core will keep
> these versions and maintained by CIP.
> For example, they believe openssl 1.0.1t will be used when kernel
> 4.4-cip is running.
> This may not right assumption.
> 
> Is there any material explaining the update policy of cip-core?
> 
> >
> > If the both tiny(deby) and generic profile(isar) are based on the same
> > CIP kernel and Debian versions, we can use such common branch name above.
> > If not, or no benefit for users to use the common branch name,
> > I would like to simply use "morty" and "master" in deby repository.
> 
> Using different version for tiny and generic may be confusing.
> In my opinion, tiny should be the subset of generic profile.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Fujita
> 
> 
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Kazu
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Kazuhiro Fujita [mailto:kazuhiro.fujita.jg at renesas.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 11:39 AM
> > > To: hayashi kazuhiro(? ?? ????????)
> > > <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>; sangorrin daniel(????? ??
> ??
> > > ????????) <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>;
> > > nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > >
> > > Hello Hayashi-san,
> > >
> > > > Should we keep the morty branch and add contents of master to another
> > > cip-
> > > > core branch, or just replace the morty by the master?
> > >
> > > In case the morty branch will be replaced by the master, current users
> > > will automatically switch to the master without knowing the change?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Fujita
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org
> > > <cip-dev-bounces@lists.cip-
> > > > project.org> On Behalf Of kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 7:09 PM
> > > > To: daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp;
> nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > >
> > > > Iwamatsu-san, Daniel,
> > > >
> > > > > > It provides debian 8 packages in OE/recipe. Is there any reason
> to
> > > > > > choose morty/debian 8?
> > > > In my understanding, this is the initial repository which was created
> > > > when the master branch (Debian 10 based) didn't exist yet.
> > > > We are planning to update it to the current master branch.
> > > >
> > > > I have another question about how to do that.
> > > > Should we keep the morty branch and add contents of master to another
> > > cip-
> > > > core branch,
> > > > or just replace the morty by the master?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Kazu
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > [mailto:cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org] On Behalf Of
> > > > > daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 2:52 PM
> > > > > To: nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > > >
> > > > > Iwamatsu-san,
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <nobuhiro.iwamatsu@miraclelinux.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 4:38 PM
> > > > > > To: sangorrin daniel(????? ???? ????????)
> > > > > <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>
> > > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > Subject: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Daniel.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have a question about about branch of meta-debian in cip-
> > core/deby.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The meta-debian branch used by cip-core/deby  is morty.
> > > > > > It provides debian 8 packages in OE/recipe. Is there any reason
> to
> > > > > > choose morty/debian 8?
> > > > > > Is the reason why the mata-debian master branch is still in
> > > > development?
> > > > > > Will you/we switch to the master branch when Debian 10 is
> > released?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, that's correct.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Daniel
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > cip-dev mailing list
> > > > > cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > cip-dev mailing list
> > > > cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev

[cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby

[kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp]

Dear Fujita-san,

> In my understanding, the targets of CIP(-core)'s support are the followings at least:
> 
> Kernel:
> 	linux-4.4.y-cip & -rt
> 	linux-4.19.y-cip & -rt
> Debian:
> 	Debian 8 (jessie)
> 	Debian 9 (stretch)
> 	Debian 10 (buster)
> 	... and every version in future
> 
> However, I think that there is no decision in CIP about the combination of
> the above kernel versions and Debian versions, which should be supported by CIP.
> This implicitly shows that all combinations could be supported, but
> it's quite hard to test and maintain all of them.
> I guess that the practical version combinations are very limited actually.
> 
> I would like to confirm opinions about this in Isar later.

Regarding the discussion with Jan,
I supposed that it's better to provide the following names for branches of tiny profile.
https://lists.cip-project.org/pipermail/cip-dev/2019-April/002094.html

	cip-core_jessie (Current "morty")
	cip-core_buster (Current "master")

I would like to push the latest master branch of deby to cip-core GitLab and
adjust it to work with kas later.

> 
> > >
> > > If the both tiny(deby) and generic profile(isar) are based on the same
> > > CIP kernel and Debian versions, we can use such common branch name above.
> > > If not, or no benefit for users to use the common branch name,
> > > I would like to simply use "morty" and "master" in deby repository.
> >
> > Using different version for tiny and generic may be confusing.
> > In my opinion, tiny should be the subset of generic profile.
> 
> Thank you for your opinion.
> Regarding the supported package list, I agree that tiny should be subset of generic.
> In order to use the common version (branch name) in tiny and generic,
> and to concentrate our efforts on well-used cases,,
> we need to make a decision about the supported version combinations between CIP kernel and Debian.

Here is the first draft of the version combinations (CIP & Debian) supported by CIP.
https://lists.cip-project.org/pipermail/cip-dev/2019-April/002117.html

	4.4 + stretch => SUPPORTED (necessary)
	4.4 + buster => NOT SUPPORTED
	4.4 + bullseye => NOT SUPPORTED
	4.19 + stretch => SUPPORTED (optional)
	4.19 + buster => SUPPORTED (necessary)
	4.19 + bullseye => SUPPORTED (optional: 4.19 should be compatible with bullseye userland)
	...

Some of them would be updated in future (especially "bullseye" (Debian 11)),
but I would like to follow this list in the future discussion.

Regards,
Kazu

> 
> Regards,
> Kazu
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kazuhiro Fujita [mailto:kazuhiro.fujita.jg at renesas.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 2:52 PM
> > To: hayashi kazuhiro(? ?? ????????)
> > <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>; sangorrin daniel(????? ????
> > ????????) <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>;
> > nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > Cc: jan.kiszka at siemens.com; cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> >
> > Hello Hayashi-san,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp
> > <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>
> > > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 10:52 AM
> > > To: Kazuhiro Fujita <kazuhiro.fujita.jg@renesas.com>;
> > > daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp; nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > Cc: jan.kiszka at siemens.com; cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > >
> > > Hello Fujita-san,
> > > CC: Jan
> > >
> > > > In case the morty branch will be replaced by the master, current users
> > > > will automatically switch to the master without knowing the change?
> > > No, user can not automatically migrate from morty to master without
> > > knowing the changes
> > > because several specifications about recipe development has been deferent
> > > between them.
> > >
> > > Therefore, regarding deby repository, it would be better to provide
> > > branches
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > > "morty" and "master" as follows:
> > > 	Current                  New
> > > 	master(poky:morty-based) => morty
> > > 	-                        => master(poky:master-based)
> > > 	jethro                   => remove? (no longer maintained in
> > meta-
> > > debian)
> > >
> > > I would like to know if we need to the common branch name in cip-core.
> > > For example: cip-core-v1(4.4+Debian8/9?),
> > cip-core-v2(4.19+Debian10), ...
> >
> > Common branch name like cip-core-xx will help many users to understand
> > which branch they should use.
> >
> > However, it may not clear CIP has decided or not that each kernel
> > version sticks to specific version of the other OSSs.
> > Some people around me say that OSSs included in cip-core will keep
> > these versions and maintained by CIP.
> > For example, they believe openssl 1.0.1t will be used when kernel
> > 4.4-cip is running.
> > This may not right assumption.
> >
> > Is there any material explaining the update policy of cip-core?
> >
> > >
> > > If the both tiny(deby) and generic profile(isar) are based on the same
> > > CIP kernel and Debian versions, we can use such common branch name above.
> > > If not, or no benefit for users to use the common branch name,
> > > I would like to simply use "morty" and "master" in deby repository.
> >
> > Using different version for tiny and generic may be confusing.
> > In my opinion, tiny should be the subset of generic profile.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Fujita
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Kazu
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Kazuhiro Fujita [mailto:kazuhiro.fujita.jg at renesas.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 11:39 AM
> > > > To: hayashi kazuhiro(? ?? ????????)
> > > > <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>; sangorrin daniel(????? ??
> > ??
> > > > ????????) <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>;
> > > > nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > >
> > > > Hello Hayashi-san,
> > > >
> > > > > Should we keep the morty branch and add contents of master to another
> > > > cip-
> > > > > core branch, or just replace the morty by the master?
> > > >
> > > > In case the morty branch will be replaced by the master, current users
> > > > will automatically switch to the master without knowing the change?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Fujita
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > <cip-dev-bounces@lists.cip-
> > > > > project.org> On Behalf Of kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 7:09 PM
> > > > > To: daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp;
> > nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > > >
> > > > > Iwamatsu-san, Daniel,
> > > > >
> > > > > > > It provides debian 8 packages in OE/recipe. Is there any reason
> > to
> > > > > > > choose morty/debian 8?
> > > > > In my understanding, this is the initial repository which was created
> > > > > when the master branch (Debian 10 based) didn't exist yet.
> > > > > We are planning to update it to the current master branch.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have another question about how to do that.
> > > > > Should we keep the morty branch and add contents of master to another
> > > > cip-
> > > > > core branch,
> > > > > or just replace the morty by the master?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Kazu
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > [mailto:cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org] On Behalf Of
> > > > > > daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 2:52 PM
> > > > > > To: nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Iwamatsu-san,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <nobuhiro.iwamatsu@miraclelinux.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 4:38 PM
> > > > > > > To: sangorrin daniel(????? ???? ????????)
> > > > > > <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>
> > > > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > Subject: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi, Daniel.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have a question about about branch of meta-debian in cip-
> > > core/deby.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The meta-debian branch used by cip-core/deby  is morty.
> > > > > > > It provides debian 8 packages in OE/recipe. Is there any reason
> > to
> > > > > > > choose morty/debian 8?
> > > > > > > Is the reason why the mata-debian master branch is still in
> > > > > development?
> > > > > > > Will you/we switch to the master branch when Debian 10 is
> > > released?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, that's correct.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Daniel
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > cip-dev mailing list
> > > > > > cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > cip-dev mailing list
> > > > > cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev
> _______________________________________________
> cip-dev mailing list
> cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev

[cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby

[Kazuhiro Fujita]

Hello Hayashi-san,

Sorry for my late reply...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 8:53 PM
> To: Kazuhiro Fujita <kazuhiro.fujita.jg@renesas.com>
> Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> 
> Dear Fujita-san,
> 
> > In my understanding, the targets of CIP(-core)'s support are the
> followings at least:
> >
> > Kernel:
> > 	linux-4.4.y-cip & -rt
> > 	linux-4.19.y-cip & -rt
> > Debian:
> > 	Debian 8 (jessie)
> > 	Debian 9 (stretch)
> > 	Debian 10 (buster)
> > 	... and every version in future
> >
> > However, I think that there is no decision in CIP about the combination
> of
> > the above kernel versions and Debian versions, which should be supported
> by CIP.
> > This implicitly shows that all combinations could be supported, but
> > it's quite hard to test and maintain all of them.
> > I guess that the practical version combinations are very limited
> actually.
> >
> > I would like to confirm opinions about this in Isar later.
> 
> Regarding the discussion with Jan,
> I supposed that it's better to provide the following names for branches of
> tiny profile.
> https://lists.cip-project.org/pipermail/cip-dev/2019-April/002094.html
> 
> 	cip-core_jessie (Current "morty")
> 	cip-core_buster (Current "master")

This naming rule is clear and reasonable.


> 
> I would like to push the latest master branch of deby to cip-core GitLab
> and
> adjust it to work with kas later.
> 
> >
> > > >
> > > > If the both tiny(deby) and generic profile(isar) are based on the
> same
> > > > CIP kernel and Debian versions, we can use such common branch name
> above.
> > > > If not, or no benefit for users to use the common branch name,
> > > > I would like to simply use "morty" and "master" in deby repository.
> > >
> > > Using different version for tiny and generic may be confusing.
> > > In my opinion, tiny should be the subset of generic profile.
> >
> > Thank you for your opinion.
> > Regarding the supported package list, I agree that tiny should be subset
> of generic.
> > In order to use the common version (branch name) in tiny and generic,
> > and to concentrate our efforts on well-used cases,,
> > we need to make a decision about the supported version combinations
> between CIP kernel and Debian.
> 
> Here is the first draft of the version combinations (CIP & Debian)
> supported by CIP.
> https://lists.cip-project.org/pipermail/cip-dev/2019-April/002117.html
> 
> 	4.4 + stretch => SUPPORTED (necessary)
> 	4.4 + buster => NOT SUPPORTED
> 	4.4 + bullseye => NOT SUPPORTED
> 	4.19 + stretch => SUPPORTED (optional)
> 	4.19 + buster => SUPPORTED (necessary)
> 	4.19 + bullseye => SUPPORTED (optional: 4.19 should be compatible
> with bullseye userland)
> 	...

If "SUPPORTED" means that CIP promise to maintain these pairs, 
it may not good idea to put "optional" choice.

In my understanding, CIP decided at the start of CIP core 
activity that CIP must maintain packages used in CIP core 
after Debian finishes its maintenance.
For example, Debian will finish their support of Stretch at 
June/2022 and CIP will maintain the packages after that day.

If "optional" means CIP will stop using that pair in future, 
putting "optional" choice may work.

Regards,
Fujita


> 
> Some of them would be updated in future (especially "bullseye" (Debian
> 11)),
> but I would like to follow this list in the future discussion.
> 
> Regards,
> Kazu
> 
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kazu
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Kazuhiro Fujita [mailto:kazuhiro.fujita.jg at renesas.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 2:52 PM
> > > To: hayashi kazuhiro(? ?? ????????)
> > > <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>; sangorrin daniel(????? ???
> ?
> > > ????????) <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>;
> > > nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > Cc: jan.kiszka at siemens.com; cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > >
> > > Hello Hayashi-san,
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp
> > > <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>
> > > > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 10:52 AM
> > > > To: Kazuhiro Fujita <kazuhiro.fujita.jg@renesas.com>;
> > > > daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp; nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > Cc: jan.kiszka at siemens.com; cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > >
> > > > Hello Fujita-san,
> > > > CC: Jan
> > > >
> > > > > In case the morty branch will be replaced by the master, current
> users
> > > > > will automatically switch to the master without knowing the
> change?
> > > > No, user can not automatically migrate from morty to master without
> > > > knowing the changes
> > > > because several specifications about recipe development has been
> deferent
> > > > between them.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, regarding deby repository, it would be better to provide
> > > > branches
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > > "morty" and "master" as follows:
> > > > 	Current                  New
> > > > 	master(poky:morty-based) => morty
> > > > 	-                        => master(poky:master-based)
> > > > 	jethro                   => remove? (no longer maintained in
> > > meta-
> > > > debian)
> > > >
> > > > I would like to know if we need to the common branch name in cip-
> core.
> > > > For example: cip-core-v1(4.4+Debian8/9?),
> > > cip-core-v2(4.19+Debian10), ...
> > >
> > > Common branch name like cip-core-xx will help many users to understand
> > > which branch they should use.
> > >
> > > However, it may not clear CIP has decided or not that each kernel
> > > version sticks to specific version of the other OSSs.
> > > Some people around me say that OSSs included in cip-core will keep
> > > these versions and maintained by CIP.
> > > For example, they believe openssl 1.0.1t will be used when kernel
> > > 4.4-cip is running.
> > > This may not right assumption.
> > >
> > > Is there any material explaining the update policy of cip-core?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If the both tiny(deby) and generic profile(isar) are based on the
> same
> > > > CIP kernel and Debian versions, we can use such common branch name
> above.
> > > > If not, or no benefit for users to use the common branch name,
> > > > I would like to simply use "morty" and "master" in deby repository.
> > >
> > > Using different version for tiny and generic may be confusing.
> > > In my opinion, tiny should be the subset of generic profile.
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Fujita
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > > Kazu
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Kazuhiro Fujita [mailto:kazuhiro.fujita.jg at renesas.com]
> > > > > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 11:39 AM
> > > > > To: hayashi kazuhiro(? ?? ????????)
> > > > > <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>; sangorrin daniel(????? ?
> ?
> > > ??
> > > > > ????????) <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>;
> > > > > nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello Hayashi-san,
> > > > >
> > > > > > Should we keep the morty branch and add contents of master to
> another
> > > > > cip-
> > > > > > core branch, or just replace the morty by the master?
> > > > >
> > > > > In case the morty branch will be replaced by the master, current
> users
> > > > > will automatically switch to the master without knowing the
> change?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Fujita
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > <cip-dev-bounces@lists.cip-
> > > > > > project.org> On Behalf Of kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 7:09 PM
> > > > > > To: daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp;
> > > nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-
> core/deby
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Iwamatsu-san, Daniel,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It provides debian 8 packages in OE/recipe. Is there any
> reason
> > > to
> > > > > > > > choose morty/debian 8?
> > > > > > In my understanding, this is the initial repository which was
> created
> > > > > > when the master branch (Debian 10 based) didn't exist yet.
> > > > > > We are planning to update it to the current master branch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have another question about how to do that.
> > > > > > Should we keep the morty branch and add contents of master to
> another
> > > > > cip-
> > > > > > core branch,
> > > > > > or just replace the morty by the master?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Kazu
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > [mailto:cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org] On Behalf Of
> > > > > > > daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 2:52 PM
> > > > > > > To: nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-
> core/deby
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Iwamatsu-san,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <nobuhiro.iwamatsu@miraclelinux.com>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 4:38 PM
> > > > > > > > To: sangorrin daniel(????? ???? ????????)
> > > > > > > <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>
> > > > > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > Subject: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi, Daniel.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have a question about about branch of meta-debian in cip-
> > > > core/deby.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The meta-debian branch used by cip-core/deby  is morty.
> > > > > > > > It provides debian 8 packages in OE/recipe. Is there any
> reason
> > > to
> > > > > > > > choose morty/debian 8?
> > > > > > > > Is the reason why the mata-debian master branch is still in
> > > > > > development?
> > > > > > > > Will you/we switch to the master branch when Debian 10 is
> > > > released?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, that's correct.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Daniel
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > cip-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > cip-dev mailing list
> > > > > > cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > cip-dev mailing list
> > cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev

[cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby

[kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp]

Dear Fujita-san,

Sorry for the late reply.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kazuhiro Fujita [mailto:kazuhiro.fujita.jg at renesas.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 8:01 PM
> To: hayashi kazuhiro(? ?? ????????) <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>
> Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> 
> Hello Hayashi-san,
> 
> Sorry for my late reply...
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 8:53 PM
> > To: Kazuhiro Fujita <kazuhiro.fujita.jg@renesas.com>
> > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> >
> > Dear Fujita-san,
> >
> > > In my understanding, the targets of CIP(-core)'s support are the
> > followings at least:
> > >
> > > Kernel:
> > > 	linux-4.4.y-cip & -rt
> > > 	linux-4.19.y-cip & -rt
> > > Debian:
> > > 	Debian 8 (jessie)
> > > 	Debian 9 (stretch)
> > > 	Debian 10 (buster)
> > > 	... and every version in future
> > >
> > > However, I think that there is no decision in CIP about the combination
> > of
> > > the above kernel versions and Debian versions, which should be supported
> > by CIP.
> > > This implicitly shows that all combinations could be supported, but
> > > it's quite hard to test and maintain all of them.
> > > I guess that the practical version combinations are very limited
> > actually.
> > >
> > > I would like to confirm opinions about this in Isar later.
> >
> > Regarding the discussion with Jan,
> > I supposed that it's better to provide the following names for branches of
> > tiny profile.
> > https://lists.cip-project.org/pipermail/cip-dev/2019-April/002094.html
> >
> > 	cip-core_jessie (Current "morty")
> > 	cip-core_buster (Current "master")
> 
> This naming rule is clear and reasonable.

Thanks, I'm preparing the new branches according to this rule.

> 
> 
> >
> > I would like to push the latest master branch of deby to cip-core GitLab
> > and
> > adjust it to work with kas later.
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If the both tiny(deby) and generic profile(isar) are based on the
> > same
> > > > > CIP kernel and Debian versions, we can use such common branch name
> > above.
> > > > > If not, or no benefit for users to use the common branch name,
> > > > > I would like to simply use "morty" and "master" in deby repository.
> > > >
> > > > Using different version for tiny and generic may be confusing.
> > > > In my opinion, tiny should be the subset of generic profile.
> > >
> > > Thank you for your opinion.
> > > Regarding the supported package list, I agree that tiny should be subset
> > of generic.
> > > In order to use the common version (branch name) in tiny and generic,
> > > and to concentrate our efforts on well-used cases,,
> > > we need to make a decision about the supported version combinations
> > between CIP kernel and Debian.
> >
> > Here is the first draft of the version combinations (CIP & Debian)
> > supported by CIP.
> > https://lists.cip-project.org/pipermail/cip-dev/2019-April/002117.html
> >
> > 	4.4 + stretch => SUPPORTED (necessary)
> > 	4.4 + buster => NOT SUPPORTED
> > 	4.4 + bullseye => NOT SUPPORTED
> > 	4.19 + stretch => SUPPORTED (optional)
> > 	4.19 + buster => SUPPORTED (necessary)
> > 	4.19 + bullseye => SUPPORTED (optional: 4.19 should be compatible
> > with bullseye userland)
> > 	...
> 
> If "SUPPORTED" means that CIP promise to maintain these pairs,
> it may not good idea to put "optional" choice.
> 
> In my understanding, CIP decided at the start of CIP core
> activity that CIP must maintain packages used in CIP core
> after Debian finishes its maintenance.
> For example, Debian will finish their support of Stretch at
> June/2022 and CIP will maintain the packages after that day.
> 
> If "optional" means CIP will stop using that pair in future,
> putting "optional" choice may work.

Thank you for pointing it out.
I would like to clarify the meaning of "optional".

At this time, cip-core has two profiles (generic, tiny).
After Debian buster released, each profile will provide the following kernel + Debian pares:

                generic     tiny
=================================
4.4 + jessie                X
4.4 + stretch   X
4.19 + stretch  X(optional)
4.19 + buster   X(default)  X

Regarding the generic profile, 4.19 + buster is provided by isar-cip-core by default,
and 4.19 + stretch is also "available" by changing the settings.
Example: https://lists.cip-project.org/pipermail/cip-dev/2019-April/002116.html
"4.19 + stretch" here is the "optional" I initially meant.

>From the maintenance PoV, (in my opinion)
once a pair becomes available in a profile, CIP need to keep maintaining (testing) it.
How the test matrix should be defined is under discussion.
(e.g. Duplicated tests should be avoided among the supported pairs and target boards)

Kind regards,
Kazu

> 
> Regards,
> Fujita
> 
> 
> >
> > Some of them would be updated in future (especially "bullseye" (Debian
> > 11)),
> > but I would like to follow this list in the future discussion.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kazu
> >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Kazu
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Kazuhiro Fujita [mailto:kazuhiro.fujita.jg at renesas.com]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 2:52 PM
> > > > To: hayashi kazuhiro(? ?? ????????)
> > > > <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>; sangorrin daniel(????? ???
> > ?
> > > > ????????) <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>;
> > > > nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > Cc: jan.kiszka at siemens.com; cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > >
> > > > Hello Hayashi-san,
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp
> > > > <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 10:52 AM
> > > > > To: Kazuhiro Fujita <kazuhiro.fujita.jg@renesas.com>;
> > > > > daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp; nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > > Cc: jan.kiszka at siemens.com; cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello Fujita-san,
> > > > > CC: Jan
> > > > >
> > > > > > In case the morty branch will be replaced by the master, current
> > users
> > > > > > will automatically switch to the master without knowing the
> > change?
> > > > > No, user can not automatically migrate from morty to master without
> > > > > knowing the changes
> > > > > because several specifications about recipe development has been
> > deferent
> > > > > between them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore, regarding deby repository, it would be better to provide
> > > > > branches
> > > >
> > > > Agreed.
> > > >
> > > > > "morty" and "master" as follows:
> > > > > 	Current                  New
> > > > > 	master(poky:morty-based) => morty
> > > > > 	-                        => master(poky:master-based)
> > > > > 	jethro                   => remove? (no longer maintained in
> > > > meta-
> > > > > debian)
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to know if we need to the common branch name in cip-
> > core.
> > > > > For example: cip-core-v1(4.4+Debian8/9?),
> > > > cip-core-v2(4.19+Debian10), ...
> > > >
> > > > Common branch name like cip-core-xx will help many users to understand
> > > > which branch they should use.
> > > >
> > > > However, it may not clear CIP has decided or not that each kernel
> > > > version sticks to specific version of the other OSSs.
> > > > Some people around me say that OSSs included in cip-core will keep
> > > > these versions and maintained by CIP.
> > > > For example, they believe openssl 1.0.1t will be used when kernel
> > > > 4.4-cip is running.
> > > > This may not right assumption.
> > > >
> > > > Is there any material explaining the update policy of cip-core?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If the both tiny(deby) and generic profile(isar) are based on the
> > same
> > > > > CIP kernel and Debian versions, we can use such common branch name
> > above.
> > > > > If not, or no benefit for users to use the common branch name,
> > > > > I would like to simply use "morty" and "master" in deby repository.
> > > >
> > > > Using different version for tiny and generic may be confusing.
> > > > In my opinion, tiny should be the subset of generic profile.
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > > Fujita
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > Kazu
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Kazuhiro Fujita [mailto:kazuhiro.fujita.jg at renesas.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 11:39 AM
> > > > > > To: hayashi kazuhiro(? ?? ????????)
> > > > > > <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>; sangorrin daniel(????? ?
> > ?
> > > > ??
> > > > > > ????????) <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>;
> > > > > > nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Hayashi-san,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Should we keep the morty branch and add contents of master to
> > another
> > > > > > cip-
> > > > > > > core branch, or just replace the morty by the master?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In case the morty branch will be replaced by the master, current
> > users
> > > > > > will automatically switch to the master without knowing the
> > change?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Fujita
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > <cip-dev-bounces@lists.cip-
> > > > > > > project.org> On Behalf Of kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 7:09 PM
> > > > > > > To: daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp;
> > > > nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-
> > core/deby
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Iwamatsu-san, Daniel,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It provides debian 8 packages in OE/recipe. Is there any
> > reason
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > choose morty/debian 8?
> > > > > > > In my understanding, this is the initial repository which was
> > created
> > > > > > > when the master branch (Debian 10 based) didn't exist yet.
> > > > > > > We are planning to update it to the current master branch.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have another question about how to do that.
> > > > > > > Should we keep the morty branch and add contents of master to
> > another
> > > > > > cip-
> > > > > > > core branch,
> > > > > > > or just replace the morty by the master?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Kazu
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > [mailto:cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org] On Behalf Of
> > > > > > > > daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 2:52 PM
> > > > > > > > To: nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-
> > core/deby
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Iwamatsu-san,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <nobuhiro.iwamatsu@miraclelinux.com>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 4:38 PM
> > > > > > > > > To: sangorrin daniel(????? ???? ????????)
> > > > > > > > <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>
> > > > > > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > > Subject: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi, Daniel.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have a question about about branch of meta-debian in cip-
> > > > > core/deby.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The meta-debian branch used by cip-core/deby  is morty.
> > > > > > > > > It provides debian 8 packages in OE/recipe. Is there any
> > reason
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > choose morty/debian 8?
> > > > > > > > > Is the reason why the mata-debian master branch is still in
> > > > > > > development?
> > > > > > > > > Will you/we switch to the master branch when Debian 10 is
> > > > > released?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, that's correct.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Daniel
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > cip-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > > cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > cip-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cip-dev mailing list
> > > cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev

[cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby

[Kazuhiro Fujita]

Hello Hayashi-san,

Thank you for your confirmation.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 9:00 PM
> To: Kazuhiro Fujita <kazuhiro.fujita.jg@renesas.com>
> Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> 
> Dear Fujita-san,
> 
> Sorry for the late reply.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kazuhiro Fujita [mailto:kazuhiro.fujita.jg at renesas.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 8:01 PM
> > To: hayashi kazuhiro(? ?? ????????)
> <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>
> > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> >
> > Hello Hayashi-san,
> >
> > Sorry for my late reply...
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp
> <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 8:53 PM
> > > To: Kazuhiro Fujita <kazuhiro.fujita.jg@renesas.com>
> > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > >
> > > Dear Fujita-san,
> > >
> > > > In my understanding, the targets of CIP(-core)'s support are the
> > > followings at least:
> > > >
> > > > Kernel:
> > > > 	linux-4.4.y-cip & -rt
> > > > 	linux-4.19.y-cip & -rt
> > > > Debian:
> > > > 	Debian 8 (jessie)
> > > > 	Debian 9 (stretch)
> > > > 	Debian 10 (buster)
> > > > 	... and every version in future
> > > >
> > > > However, I think that there is no decision in CIP about the
> combination
> > > of
> > > > the above kernel versions and Debian versions, which should be
> supported
> > > by CIP.
> > > > This implicitly shows that all combinations could be supported, but
> > > > it's quite hard to test and maintain all of them.
> > > > I guess that the practical version combinations are very limited
> > > actually.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to confirm opinions about this in Isar later.
> > >
> > > Regarding the discussion with Jan,
> > > I supposed that it's better to provide the following names for
> branches of
> > > tiny profile.
> > > https://lists.cip-project.org/pipermail/cip-dev/2019-April/002094.html
> > >
> > > 	cip-core_jessie (Current "morty")
> > > 	cip-core_buster (Current "master")
> >
> > This naming rule is clear and reasonable.
> 
> Thanks, I'm preparing the new branches according to this rule.
> 
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I would like to push the latest master branch of deby to cip-core
> GitLab
> > > and
> > > adjust it to work with kas later.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If the both tiny(deby) and generic profile(isar) are based on
> the
> > > same
> > > > > > CIP kernel and Debian versions, we can use such common branch
> name
> > > above.
> > > > > > If not, or no benefit for users to use the common branch name,
> > > > > > I would like to simply use "morty" and "master" in deby
> repository.
> > > > >
> > > > > Using different version for tiny and generic may be confusing.
> > > > > In my opinion, tiny should be the subset of generic profile.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for your opinion.
> > > > Regarding the supported package list, I agree that tiny should be
> subset
> > > of generic.
> > > > In order to use the common version (branch name) in tiny and generic,
> > > > and to concentrate our efforts on well-used cases,,
> > > > we need to make a decision about the supported version combinations
> > > between CIP kernel and Debian.
> > >
> > > Here is the first draft of the version combinations (CIP & Debian)
> > > supported by CIP.
> > > https://lists.cip-project.org/pipermail/cip-dev/2019-April/002117.html
> > >
> > > 	4.4 + stretch => SUPPORTED (necessary)
> > > 	4.4 + buster => NOT SUPPORTED
> > > 	4.4 + bullseye => NOT SUPPORTED
> > > 	4.19 + stretch => SUPPORTED (optional)
> > > 	4.19 + buster => SUPPORTED (necessary)
> > > 	4.19 + bullseye => SUPPORTED (optional: 4.19 should be compatible
> > > with bullseye userland)
> > > 	...
> >
> > If "SUPPORTED" means that CIP promise to maintain these pairs,
> > it may not good idea to put "optional" choice.
> >
> > In my understanding, CIP decided at the start of CIP core
> > activity that CIP must maintain packages used in CIP core
> > after Debian finishes its maintenance.
> > For example, Debian will finish their support of Stretch at
> > June/2022 and CIP will maintain the packages after that day.
> >
> > If "optional" means CIP will stop using that pair in future,
> > putting "optional" choice may work.
> 
> Thank you for pointing it out.
> I would like to clarify the meaning of "optional".
> 
> At this time, cip-core has two profiles (generic, tiny).
> After Debian buster released, each profile will provide the following
> kernel + Debian pares:
> 
>                 generic     tiny
> =================================
> 4.4 + jessie                X

Debian announced that their security support for jessie finishes in next month.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/2018/msg00132.html


> 4.4 + stretch   X
> 4.19 + stretch  X(optional)
> 4.19 + buster   X(default)  X
> 
> Regarding the generic profile, 4.19 + buster is provided by isar-cip-core
> by default,
> and 4.19 + stretch is also "available" by changing the settings.
> Example: https://lists.cip-project.org/pipermail/cip-dev/2019-
> April/002116.html
> "4.19 + stretch" here is the "optional" I initially meant.
> 
> From the maintenance PoV, (in my opinion)
> once a pair becomes available in a profile, CIP need to keep maintaining
> (testing) it.
> How the test matrix should be defined is under discussion.
> (e.g. Duplicated tests should be avoided among the supported pairs and
> target boards)

If CIP itself starts to support jessie as soon after finishing debian's support,
we must hurry to discuss about this topic.

Kind regards,
Fujita


> 
> Kind regards,
> Kazu
> 
> >
> > Regards,
> > Fujita
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Some of them would be updated in future (especially "bullseye" (Debian
> > > 11)),
> > > but I would like to follow this list in the future discussion.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Kazu
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Kazu
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Kazuhiro Fujita [mailto:kazuhiro.fujita.jg at renesas.com]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 2:52 PM
> > > > > To: hayashi kazuhiro(? ?? ????????)
> > > > > <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>; sangorrin daniel(????? ?
> ??
> > > ?
> > > > > ????????) <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>;
> > > > > nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > > Cc: jan.kiszka at siemens.com; cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello Hayashi-san,
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp
> > > > > <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 10:52 AM
> > > > > > To: Kazuhiro Fujita <kazuhiro.fujita.jg@renesas.com>;
> > > > > > daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp;
> nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > > > Cc: jan.kiszka at siemens.com; cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Fujita-san,
> > > > > > CC: Jan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In case the morty branch will be replaced by the master,
> current
> > > users
> > > > > > > will automatically switch to the master without knowing the
> > > change?
> > > > > > No, user can not automatically migrate from morty to master
> without
> > > > > > knowing the changes
> > > > > > because several specifications about recipe development has been
> > > deferent
> > > > > > between them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Therefore, regarding deby repository, it would be better to
> provide
> > > > > > branches
> > > > >
> > > > > Agreed.
> > > > >
> > > > > > "morty" and "master" as follows:
> > > > > > 	Current                  New
> > > > > > 	master(poky:morty-based) => morty
> > > > > > 	-                        => master(poky:master-based)
> > > > > > 	jethro                   => remove? (no longer maintained in
> > > > > meta-
> > > > > > debian)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to know if we need to the common branch name in
> cip-
> > > core.
> > > > > > For example: cip-core-v1(4.4+Debian8/9?),
> > > > > cip-core-v2(4.19+Debian10), ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Common branch name like cip-core-xx will help many users to
> understand
> > > > > which branch they should use.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, it may not clear CIP has decided or not that each kernel
> > > > > version sticks to specific version of the other OSSs.
> > > > > Some people around me say that OSSs included in cip-core will keep
> > > > > these versions and maintained by CIP.
> > > > > For example, they believe openssl 1.0.1t will be used when kernel
> > > > > 4.4-cip is running.
> > > > > This may not right assumption.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there any material explaining the update policy of cip-core?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If the both tiny(deby) and generic profile(isar) are based on
> the
> > > same
> > > > > > CIP kernel and Debian versions, we can use such common branch
> name
> > > above.
> > > > > > If not, or no benefit for users to use the common branch name,
> > > > > > I would like to simply use "morty" and "master" in deby
> repository.
> > > > >
> > > > > Using different version for tiny and generic may be confusing.
> > > > > In my opinion, tiny should be the subset of generic profile.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > Fujita
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > Kazu
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Kazuhiro Fujita [mailto:kazuhiro.fujita.jg at renesas.com]
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 11:39 AM
> > > > > > > To: hayashi kazuhiro(? ?? ????????)
> > > > > > > <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>; sangorrin daniel(?????
> ?
> > > ?
> > > > > ??
> > > > > > > ????????) <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>;
> > > > > > > nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello Hayashi-san,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Should we keep the morty branch and add contents of master
> to
> > > another
> > > > > > > cip-
> > > > > > > > core branch, or just replace the morty by the master?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In case the morty branch will be replaced by the master,
> current
> > > users
> > > > > > > will automatically switch to the master without knowing the
> > > change?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Fujita
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > <cip-dev-bounces@lists.cip-
> > > > > > > > project.org> On Behalf Of kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 7:09 PM
> > > > > > > > To: daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp;
> > > > > nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-
> > > core/deby
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Iwamatsu-san, Daniel,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It provides debian 8 packages in OE/recipe. Is there any
> > > reason
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > choose morty/debian 8?
> > > > > > > > In my understanding, this is the initial repository which
> was
> > > created
> > > > > > > > when the master branch (Debian 10 based) didn't exist yet.
> > > > > > > > We are planning to update it to the current master branch.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have another question about how to do that.
> > > > > > > > Should we keep the morty branch and add contents of master
> to
> > > another
> > > > > > > cip-
> > > > > > > > core branch,
> > > > > > > > or just replace the morty by the master?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > Kazu
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > > [mailto:cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org] On Behalf
> Of
> > > > > > > > > daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 2:52 PM
> > > > > > > > > To: nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > > > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-
> > > core/deby
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Iwamatsu-san,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > From: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
> <nobuhiro.iwamatsu@miraclelinux.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 4:38 PM
> > > > > > > > > > To: sangorrin daniel(????? ???? ???????
> ?)
> > > > > > > > > <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>
> > > > > > > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi, Daniel.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I have a question about about branch of meta-debian in
> cip-
> > > > > > core/deby.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The meta-debian branch used by cip-core/deby  is morty.
> > > > > > > > > > It provides debian 8 packages in OE/recipe. Is there any
> > > reason
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > choose morty/debian 8?
> > > > > > > > > > Is the reason why the mata-debian master branch is still
> in
> > > > > > > > development?
> > > > > > > > > > Will you/we switch to the master branch when Debian 10
> is
> > > > > > released?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes, that's correct.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Daniel
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > cip-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > > > cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > > https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > cip-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > > cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > cip-dev mailing list
> > > > cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev

[cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby

[kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp]

Hello Fujita-san,

> (...snipped...)
> > Thank you for pointing it out.
> > I would like to clarify the meaning of "optional".
> >
> > At this time, cip-core has two profiles (generic, tiny).
> > After Debian buster released, each profile will provide the following
> > kernel + Debian pares:
> >
> >                 generic     tiny
> > =================================
> > 4.4 + jessie                X
> 
> Debian announced that their security support for jessie finishes in next month.
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/2018/msg00132.html

This announce also means that the Debian LTS team starts maintenance of jessie from June 2018.
https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/

> 
> 
> > 4.4 + stretch   X
> > 4.19 + stretch  X(optional)
> > 4.19 + buster   X(default)  X
> >
> > Regarding the generic profile, 4.19 + buster is provided by isar-cip-core
> > by default,
> > and 4.19 + stretch is also "available" by changing the settings.
> > Example: https://lists.cip-project.org/pipermail/cip-dev/2019-
> > April/002116.html
> > "4.19 + stretch" here is the "optional" I initially meant.
> >
> > From the maintenance PoV, (in my opinion)
> > once a pair becomes available in a profile, CIP need to keep maintaining
> > (testing) it.
> > How the test matrix should be defined is under discussion.
> > (e.g. Duplicated tests should be avoided among the supported pairs and
> > target boards)
> 
> If CIP itself starts to support jessie as soon after finishing debian's support,
> we must hurry to discuss about this topic.

jessie is still being maintained by LTS until June 2019.

Deby will support "building" images with CIP 4.4 and Debian 8 jessie sources.
Regarding maintenance policy of jessie sources by CIP, more discussions are required.
In my understanding, whether sources in the specific Debian version should be maintained or not
depends on how many CIP users are now using it in their developments actually.

Kind regards,
Kazu

> 
> Kind regards,
> Fujita
> 
> 
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Kazu
> >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Fujita
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Some of them would be updated in future (especially "bullseye" (Debian
> > > > 11)),
> > > > but I would like to follow this list in the future discussion.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Kazu
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Kazu
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Kazuhiro Fujita [mailto:kazuhiro.fujita.jg at renesas.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 2:52 PM
> > > > > > To: hayashi kazuhiro(? ?? ????????)
> > > > > > <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>; sangorrin daniel(????? ?
> > ??
> > > > ?
> > > > > > ????????) <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>;
> > > > > > nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > > > Cc: jan.kiszka at siemens.com; cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Hayashi-san,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp
> > > > > > <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 10:52 AM
> > > > > > > To: Kazuhiro Fujita <kazuhiro.fujita.jg@renesas.com>;
> > > > > > > daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp;
> > nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > > > > Cc: jan.kiszka at siemens.com; cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello Fujita-san,
> > > > > > > CC: Jan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In case the morty branch will be replaced by the master,
> > current
> > > > users
> > > > > > > > will automatically switch to the master without knowing the
> > > > change?
> > > > > > > No, user can not automatically migrate from morty to master
> > without
> > > > > > > knowing the changes
> > > > > > > because several specifications about recipe development has been
> > > > deferent
> > > > > > > between them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Therefore, regarding deby repository, it would be better to
> > provide
> > > > > > > branches
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Agreed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "morty" and "master" as follows:
> > > > > > > 	Current                  New
> > > > > > > 	master(poky:morty-based) => morty
> > > > > > > 	-                        => master(poky:master-based)
> > > > > > > 	jethro                   => remove? (no longer maintained in
> > > > > > meta-
> > > > > > > debian)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would like to know if we need to the common branch name in
> > cip-
> > > > core.
> > > > > > > For example: cip-core-v1(4.4+Debian8/9?),
> > > > > > cip-core-v2(4.19+Debian10), ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Common branch name like cip-core-xx will help many users to
> > understand
> > > > > > which branch they should use.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, it may not clear CIP has decided or not that each kernel
> > > > > > version sticks to specific version of the other OSSs.
> > > > > > Some people around me say that OSSs included in cip-core will keep
> > > > > > these versions and maintained by CIP.
> > > > > > For example, they believe openssl 1.0.1t will be used when kernel
> > > > > > 4.4-cip is running.
> > > > > > This may not right assumption.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there any material explaining the update policy of cip-core?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If the both tiny(deby) and generic profile(isar) are based on
> > the
> > > > same
> > > > > > > CIP kernel and Debian versions, we can use such common branch
> > name
> > > > above.
> > > > > > > If not, or no benefit for users to use the common branch name,
> > > > > > > I would like to simply use "morty" and "master" in deby
> > repository.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Using different version for tiny and generic may be confusing.
> > > > > > In my opinion, tiny should be the subset of generic profile.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > Fujita
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > Kazu
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: Kazuhiro Fujita [mailto:kazuhiro.fujita.jg at renesas.com]
> > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 11:39 AM
> > > > > > > > To: hayashi kazuhiro(? ?? ????????)
> > > > > > > > <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>; sangorrin daniel(?????
> > ?
> > > > ?
> > > > > > ??
> > > > > > > > ????????) <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>;
> > > > > > > > nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello Hayashi-san,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Should we keep the morty branch and add contents of master
> > to
> > > > another
> > > > > > > > cip-
> > > > > > > > > core branch, or just replace the morty by the master?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In case the morty branch will be replaced by the master,
> > current
> > > > users
> > > > > > > > will automatically switch to the master without knowing the
> > > > change?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > Fujita
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > <cip-dev-bounces@lists.cip-
> > > > > > > > > project.org> On Behalf Of kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 7:09 PM
> > > > > > > > > To: daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp;
> > > > > > nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > > > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-
> > > > core/deby
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Iwamatsu-san, Daniel,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It provides debian 8 packages in OE/recipe. Is there any
> > > > reason
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > choose morty/debian 8?
> > > > > > > > > In my understanding, this is the initial repository which
> > was
> > > > created
> > > > > > > > > when the master branch (Debian 10 based) didn't exist yet.
> > > > > > > > > We are planning to update it to the current master branch.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have another question about how to do that.
> > > > > > > > > Should we keep the morty branch and add contents of master
> > to
> > > > another
> > > > > > > > cip-
> > > > > > > > > core branch,
> > > > > > > > > or just replace the morty by the master?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > Kazu
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > > > [mailto:cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org] On Behalf
> > Of
> > > > > > > > > > daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 2:52 PM
> > > > > > > > > > To: nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > > > > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-
> > > > core/deby
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Iwamatsu-san,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
> > <nobuhiro.iwamatsu@miraclelinux.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 4:38 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > To: sangorrin daniel(????? ???? ???????
> > ?)
> > > > > > > > > > <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>
> > > > > > > > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Daniel.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I have a question about about branch of meta-debian in
> > cip-
> > > > > > > core/deby.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The meta-debian branch used by cip-core/deby  is morty.
> > > > > > > > > > > It provides debian 8 packages in OE/recipe. Is there any
> > > > reason
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > choose morty/debian 8?
> > > > > > > > > > > Is the reason why the mata-debian master branch is still
> > in
> > > > > > > > > development?
> > > > > > > > > > > Will you/we switch to the master branch when Debian 10
> > is
> > > > > > > released?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's correct.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Daniel
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > cip-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > > > https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > cip-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > > > cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > > https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > cip-dev mailing list
> > > > > cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev

[cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby

[Kazuhiro Fujita]

Hello Hayashi-san,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>
> Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 4:45 PM
> To: Kazuhiro Fujita <kazuhiro.fujita.jg@renesas.com>
> Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> 
> Hello Fujita-san,
> 
> > (...snipped...)
> > > Thank you for pointing it out.
> > > I would like to clarify the meaning of "optional".
> > >
> > > At this time, cip-core has two profiles (generic, tiny).
> > > After Debian buster released, each profile will provide the following
> > > kernel + Debian pares:
> > >
> > >                 generic     tiny
> > > =================================
> > > 4.4 + jessie                X
> >
> > Debian announced that their security support for jessie finishes in next
> month.
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/2018/msg00132.html
> 
> This announce also means that the Debian LTS team starts maintenance of
> jessie from June 2018.
> https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/

Thank you for this information.


> 
> >
> >
> > > 4.4 + stretch   X
> > > 4.19 + stretch  X(optional)
> > > 4.19 + buster   X(default)  X
> > >
> > > Regarding the generic profile, 4.19 + buster is provided by isar-cip-
> core
> > > by default,
> > > and 4.19 + stretch is also "available" by changing the settings.
> > > Example: https://lists.cip-project.org/pipermail/cip-dev/2019-
> > > April/002116.html
> > > "4.19 + stretch" here is the "optional" I initially meant.
> > >
> > > From the maintenance PoV, (in my opinion)
> > > once a pair becomes available in a profile, CIP need to keep
> maintaining
> > > (testing) it.
> > > How the test matrix should be defined is under discussion.
> > > (e.g. Duplicated tests should be avoided among the supported pairs and
> > > target boards)
> >
> > If CIP itself starts to support jessie as soon after finishing debian's
> support,
> > we must hurry to discuss about this topic.
> 
> jessie is still being maintained by LTS until June 2019.
> 
> Deby will support "building" images with CIP 4.4 and Debian 8 jessie
> sources.
> Regarding maintenance policy of jessie sources by CIP, more discussions
> are required.

Agreed.


> In my understanding, whether sources in the specific Debian version should
> be maintained or not
> depends on how many CIP users are now using it in their developments
> actually.

I wish this topic will be add soon to the agenda of some important meeting.

Kind regards,
Fujita Kazuhiro


> 
> Kind regards,
> Kazu
> 
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Fujita
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Kazu
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Fujita
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Some of them would be updated in future (especially "bullseye"
> (Debian
> > > > > 11)),
> > > > > but I would like to follow this list in the future discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Kazu
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Kazu
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Kazuhiro Fujita [mailto:kazuhiro.fujita.jg at renesas.com]
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 2:52 PM
> > > > > > > To: hayashi kazuhiro(? ?? ????????)
> > > > > > > <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>; sangorrin daniel(?????
> ?
> > > ??
> > > > > ?
> > > > > > > ????????) <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>;
> > > > > > > nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > > > > Cc: jan.kiszka at siemens.com; cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello Hayashi-san,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp
> > > > > > > <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 10:52 AM
> > > > > > > > To: Kazuhiro Fujita <kazuhiro.fujita.jg@renesas.com>;
> > > > > > > > daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp;
> > > nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > > > > > Cc: jan.kiszka at siemens.com; cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello Fujita-san,
> > > > > > > > CC: Jan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In case the morty branch will be replaced by the master,
> > > current
> > > > > users
> > > > > > > > > will automatically switch to the master without knowing
> the
> > > > > change?
> > > > > > > > No, user can not automatically migrate from morty to master
> > > without
> > > > > > > > knowing the changes
> > > > > > > > because several specifications about recipe development has
> been
> > > > > deferent
> > > > > > > > between them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Therefore, regarding deby repository, it would be better to
> > > provide
> > > > > > > > branches
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Agreed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "morty" and "master" as follows:
> > > > > > > > 	Current                  New
> > > > > > > > 	master(poky:morty-based) => morty
> > > > > > > > 	-                        => master(poky:master-based)
> > > > > > > > 	jethro                   => remove? (no longer
> maintained in
> > > > > > > meta-
> > > > > > > > debian)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would like to know if we need to the common branch name in
> > > cip-
> > > > > core.
> > > > > > > > For example: cip-core-v1(4.4+Debian8/9?),
> > > > > > > cip-core-v2(4.19+Debian10), ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Common branch name like cip-core-xx will help many users to
> > > understand
> > > > > > > which branch they should use.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, it may not clear CIP has decided or not that each
> kernel
> > > > > > > version sticks to specific version of the other OSSs.
> > > > > > > Some people around me say that OSSs included in cip-core will
> keep
> > > > > > > these versions and maintained by CIP.
> > > > > > > For example, they believe openssl 1.0.1t will be used when
> kernel
> > > > > > > 4.4-cip is running.
> > > > > > > This may not right assumption.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is there any material explaining the update policy of cip-
> core?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If the both tiny(deby) and generic profile(isar) are based
> on
> > > the
> > > > > same
> > > > > > > > CIP kernel and Debian versions, we can use such common
> branch
> > > name
> > > > > above.
> > > > > > > > If not, or no benefit for users to use the common branch
> name,
> > > > > > > > I would like to simply use "morty" and "master" in deby
> > > repository.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Using different version for tiny and generic may be confusing.
> > > > > > > In my opinion, tiny should be the subset of generic profile.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > Fujita
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > Kazu
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: Kazuhiro Fujita
> [mailto:kazuhiro.fujita.jg at renesas.com]
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 11:39 AM
> > > > > > > > > To: hayashi kazuhiro(? ?? ????????)
> > > > > > > > > <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>; sangorrin daniel(???
> ??
> > > ?
> > > > > ?
> > > > > > > ??
> > > > > > > > > ????????) <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>;
> > > > > > > > > nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > > > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: about branch of meta-debian in cip-core/deby
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hello Hayashi-san,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Should we keep the morty branch and add contents of
> master
> > > to
> > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > cip-
> > > > > > > > > > core branch, or just replace the morty by the master?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In case the morty branch will be replaced by the master,
> > > current
> > > > > users
> > > > > > > > > will automatically switch to the master without knowing
> the
> > > > > change?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > Fujita
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > > <cip-dev-bounces@lists.cip-
> > > > > > > > > > project.org> On Behalf Of
> kazuhiro3.hayashi at toshiba.co.jp
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 7:09 PM
> > > > > > > > > > To: daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp;
> > > > > > > nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > > > > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in
> cip-
> > > > > core/deby
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Iwamatsu-san, Daniel,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It provides debian 8 packages in OE/recipe. Is there
> any
> > > > > reason
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > choose morty/debian 8?
> > > > > > > > > > In my understanding, this is the initial repository
> which
> > > was
> > > > > created
> > > > > > > > > > when the master branch (Debian 10 based) didn't exist
> yet.
> > > > > > > > > > We are planning to update it to the current master
> branch.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I have another question about how to do that.
> > > > > > > > > > Should we keep the morty branch and add contents of
> master
> > > to
> > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > cip-
> > > > > > > > > > core branch,
> > > > > > > > > > or just replace the morty by the master?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Kazu
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > > > > [mailto:cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org] On
> Behalf
> > > Of
> > > > > > > > > > > daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 2:52 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > To: nobuhiro.iwamatsu at miraclelinux.com
> > > > > > > > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [cip-dev] about branch of meta-debian in
> cip-
> > > > > core/deby
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Iwamatsu-san,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
> > > <nobuhiro.iwamatsu@miraclelinux.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 4:38 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: sangorrin daniel(????? ???? ?????
> ??
> > > ?)
> > > > > > > > > > > <daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: about branch of meta-debian in cip-
> core/deby
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Daniel.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I have a question about about branch of meta-debian
> in
> > > cip-
> > > > > > > > core/deby.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The meta-debian branch used by cip-core/deby  is
> morty.
> > > > > > > > > > > > It provides debian 8 packages in OE/recipe. Is there
> any
> > > > > reason
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > choose morty/debian 8?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Is the reason why the mata-debian master branch is
> still
> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > development?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Will you/we switch to the master branch when Debian
> 10
> > > is
> > > > > > > > released?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's correct.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > Daniel
> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > cip-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > > cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > cip-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > > > > > https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > cip-dev mailing list
> > > > > > cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > > > > > https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev