Difference between revisions of "OEDVM 2021"

Revision as of 11:08, 25 May 2021

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.

Format

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

Schedule

All times are in UTC.

• 1530 - 1600: BSP
• 1610 - 1640: BSOM
• 1650 - 1720: Documentation
• 1730 - 1800: X11/sato
• 1810 - 1840: Layer Quality
• 1850 - 1920: Maintainer's Life
• 1930 - 2000: LTS