Yocto, Poky and OE

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 21:09 +0100, Andrea Adami wrote:
> my personal opinion is that we can't avoid to cooperate/merge with
> Yocto.
> 
> About the OE future after the merge, some points are still unclear to
> me and and I'd like to know how our OE representatives (TSC ?) will
> proceed.
> 
> My concerns are:
> 
> 1) OE or Poky ?.
> Which is the 'official' buildsystem? We don't need 2 buildsystems.
> Reading e.g. statements as " At the core of Yocto is the Poky build
> system,..." sounds bitter.
> While I understand the commercial reasons behind Poky, I cannot deny
> that the 'fork' done with Poky makes OE people a bit upset. Finally
> Poky consists of bitbake and modified OE metadata. While I give all
> merits to RP for his work,  IMHO the role Poky has in Yocto should be
> for OE (oe-core?).

I think my last email made it clear the proposal was we'd collaborate
around an "openembedded-core", not Poky.

> 2) Naming ot the layers
> Perhaps I'm wrong but I feel that many OE people would prefer to see OE references instead of Poky's.
> It's just a naming issue I think.

See above, I think this was also covered in that email. If not, I'm
happy to clarify any specific questions...

> 3) Official membership
> I'd prefer an official memebership, not only a gentlemen's agreement.
> Some members bring capital in the form of money, OE would bring hours spent on the metadata.
> It's still capital.

The OE board is working on signing an agreement.

Cheers,

Richard