Re: Does Yocto need some "LTS" releases?
Thanks for the comments.
On 8 May 2014, at 21:11, Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@...> wrote:
On 5/8/14, 2:54 PM, Chris Tapp wrote:That's true, and I've always been very impressed with the number and quality of the contributors to YP. It's a really good case-study to throw at those who say opensource doesn't work or make commercial sense ;-)I've had a few potential clients ask how security updates and general patchesThe Yocto Project, via it's contributors usually provides support for the -two- releases + master.
If they're really embedded, then the only way to to this is by replacing theYes, I've followed a few of those with interest. We've moved to a model of using iPXE to network boot (we have a closed client-server system) a read-only image to make it easier (for us).rootfs - especially when they boot read-only.See the million threads on "field upgrade". There is no one answer. Device upgrade, Image upgrade, package upgrade, and file upgrades are all possibilities... but these need to be built into the device during it's design. There are no best practices available, as everyone seems to have different requirements.
A second complication is when support for a BSP gets dropped so laterThat's how I try and work, sticking with a single version of YP until a major version change of our application or we need to switch to different hardware. A bit of layer management is all that's been needed so far to allow me to build for different hardware.versions, which generally include updates and patches, can't be used.If you are releasing a product, you shouldn't be expecting to migrate (in a product lifecycle) from YP 1.4 to YP 1.5 to YP 1.6, etc. Each release is individual, and an overall target based upgrade and BSP obsolescence is not part of the project. This is really the realm of the device manufacturer, OSV and other commercial vendors of YP components.
It feels to me as if there should be some "LTS" releases which developersBasically, this all fits with my expectations / understanding. I can now show clients that I am talking about "the real world" (TM) and not simply trying to add support costs ;-)could focus on when choosing a version.It all comes down to contributions in the end. If nobody is contributing, don't expect updates. There has been talk over time of an LTS type release. I've heard everything from extending the 1 year to '2' years.. or as contributions are available.
However, I still need to work at convincing people that it's not always as simple as updating one package as the update can have knock-on effects else where - which is why a "simple" update can end up being very time consuming and/or costly to implement.
One option may be to convince them that it'll be cheaper to upgrade the hardware at the same time if the best option is to move to a newer YP version and it does not include the BSP that's required.