[oe] Plans for OE classic future

[Tom Rini]

On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks
<fransmeulenbroeks at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/11/25 Tom Rini <tom.rini at gmail.com>
>
>>
>>
>> <Putting on TSC hat>
>> The problem with this mindset is that we don't want to have
>> oe-core+meta-oe+etc and oe.dev diverge any more than they had at the
>> start.  This is why at some point master needs to become read-only.
>> Everyone and their master based project can still fetch and build and
>> work.  But if you're going right now and saying "I need to start a new
>> project and it should be oe.dev+master based", please speak up now
>> about why you're unable to use oe-core+etc.  We can't solve what we
>> don't know is a problem and frankly I think the TSC is of the mind
>> that oe-core+etc is as good as or better than oe.dev.  If we're wrong,
>> someone needs to tell us what's missing.
>>
>
> Well, there is at least the issue of machines and architectures.
> Now it is probably not too big a deal to bring over a new machine and turn
> it into a BSP layers, but adding another architecture is yet another thing.
>
> We do have products that are based upon NIOS II. This architecture is
> present in OE classic and not in OE core.
> One of the issues is that the NIOS II toolchain is still based upon (iirc)
> gcc 4.1.1
> I do not see an upgrade of gcc/niosii happen in the near future (In the
> past I did spent some time to see if I could move to a newer version, but
> there were some issues, and afaik no one is working on this atm), and I
> doubt oe-core is interested in having a 4.1.1 toolchain around.

An external toolchain should be fine.  You should also be able to put
that gcc & company into meta-niosii.  If you can't, then IMHO, there's
a problem someone needs to look at.  But I suspect there isn't a
problem doing that.

> Therefore probably our next niosii project will still be oe-classic based.
> On the other hand we also have ppc projects and the next one might quite
> well use oe-core (it is too late to switch for the current one as we need
> to release next month).
>
> (and more general: oe classic still has quite some recipes that are not in
> oe-core or meta-oe (apart from the fact that the latter is not really too
> open to contributions; see the email thread on id3lib from a while ago).

Where someone asked Koen to document the differences between oe-core
requirements and meta-oe requirements?  Yes, that's reasonable but
lets not fool ourselves either, it's not vastly different, it's PR =
r0 or not (and PR is supposed to go away).

-- 
Tom