OEDVM 2021

From Openembedded.org
Jump to: navigation, search

Location and Time

Co-located with the Yocto Project Summit held on May 25-26, 2021.

The Developers Meeting is scheduled for May 25th between 15:30 and 20:00 UTC. The exact times for each individual topic are found below in the schedule.


As always, we will collect topics on the wiki at https://www.openembedded.org/OEDVM_2021.

For the actual developer meeting, there will be pre-assigned timeslots for each topic. The moderator(s) have the option of opening with a short introduction/presentation to introduce the topic.

Topic Ideas

  • BSPs: best practice exemplars, cross-project issue tracker, linters, incentive loop design
    • Moderator(s): Rich Persaud, Philip Balister

  • Insight into the life of a Maintainer
    • Moderator(s): Armin Kuster
      • The good, bad and ugly of Maintaining Poky, meta-openembedded, meta-security and a BSP.

  • X11 is dead; long live X11! what's to become of core-image-sato?
    • Moderator(s): Trevor Woerner, Alexander Kanavin, Joshua Watt, Ross Burton
    • Premise:
      • the Yocto Project provides a sample distribution (poky) and images (core-image-minimal, core-image-base, core-image-full-cmdline…) to give users examples to follow and provide a basis for testing purposes
      • core-image-sato was created to fill the GUI niche as an example and for testing
      • core-image-sato is based on gtk+ 3.x and x11
      • both gtk+ 3 and x11 are EOL/unmaintained
    • Discussion:
      • do we need a GUI image going forward (as an example, for testing purposes)?
      • how much testing does core-image-sato receive?
      • how many teams have based their work on core-image-sato?
      • if a GUI image is still needed, upon which toolkit and compositor should it be based?
      • what's to become of core-image-sato?
      • what's to become of x11 support in oecore?

  • SBOM (Software Bill of Materials)
    • Moderator(s): Trevor Woerner, Armin Kuster, Mikko Murto (meta-doubleopen)
    • Premise:
      • the requirement to provide a software bill of materials when delivering software to a customer/user is becoming more and more common
      • e.g. a recent Executive Order in the United States requires an SBOM for security reasons
      • as a project that creates images from sources, YP/OE is perfectly positioned to generate SBOMs for its artifacts
      • we already generate similar information for software licence compliance via SPDX
    • Discussion:
      • meta-doubleopen seems to be moving in this direction
      • what information is required for an SBOM, what are the requirements to create a legally compliant SBOM?
      • SPDX seems to be the best format for us to use, any objections?
      • in our builds when/where do we generate the SBOM? do_package/do_packagedata? archiver/do_populate_lic?
      • we already generate various manifests (e.g. buildhistory) should we replace this information with proper SBOMs?

  • LTS (Long Term Support)
    • Moderator(s): Trevor Woerner, Armin Kuster, Khem Raj
    • Premise:
      • for the first time ever, the Yocto Project experimented with having an LTS as well as its regular releases
    • Discussion:
      • did anyone notice?
      • did anyone use it?
      • what did people like about it?
      • what could be changed?
      • should we do it again?
      • what repercussions are there for the larger YP/OE community (layer maintainers)?
      • is 2 years too much? not enough? just right?

  • Improving Layer quality: Layerindex combined with a layerchecker
    • Moderator(s): Jan-Simon Möller (dl9pf@gmx.de)
    • Premise:
      • Layers need to interop well. There is work to do. Let's chop some wood!
    • Discussion:
      • Overview on the current state
      • Your own pain points ?
      • The good and the bad examples ?!
      • How can we improve collectively ?
      • How can we support that process ?

  • Project Documentation
    • Moderator(s): Michael Opdenacker, Nicolas Dechesne
    • Premise:
      • the Yocto Project takes documentation very seriously and strives to have relevant, up-to-date documentation available for all users
      • feedback about the current state of the documentation
      • ongoing work
      • guidelines for contributing
    • Discussion:
      • what's missing?
      • what should be fixed?
      • what's obsolete?

  • Automation of CVE Verification
    • Moderators: David Reyna, Shachar Menashe
    • Premise:
      • Propose Sharing CVE information via Layer Index to assist automation
      • CVE checking by package version does not capture OE patches, so false positives
      • CVE management is expensive, automation makes it feasible, data must be programmatically available
    • Discussion:
      • Proposal to contribute to the Layer Index to share CVE information
      • Proposal to validate this for internal tools (CVE Checker, SRTool)
      • Proposal to validate this for external tools (VDoo, ...)
      • Open discussion in ways to help CVE management


All times are in UTC.

  • 1530 - 1555: CVE
  • 1555 - 1615: BSOM
  • 1615 - 1640: Documentation
  • 1650 - 1720: X11/sato
  • 1730 - 1800: Layer Quality
  • 1810 - 1840: BSP
  • 1850 - 1920: Maintainer's Life
  • 1930 - 2000: LTS