On 12/14/2011 10:43 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
On 11-12-14 01:07 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
Heavily trimmed down to the remaining points of discussion...
So what does that mean here? Well, I suggest we put all the sources in
standard (minus evil BSP patches obviously) and then create a ktype per
DISTRO definition:
And minus -rt at the moment.
Yes, sorry, I intended that, but didn't make that clear. Agreed.
yocto/base
yocto/standard/base
yocto/standard/poky
yocto/standard/poky-rt
yocto/standard/poky-tiny
I'd want the distro not to be named in the branches, but yes,
that looks ok to me.
Hrm, that's too bad. I really like the explicit coupling of the OE
distro definition to the linux-yocto branch. It helps reinforce the
concept of distro defined policy. I think I know where you are coming
from though.
Yep, I'm not sold on a distro name, but if you change this to:
yocto/base
yocto/standard/cfg (bad name, but I wanted something)
yocto/standard/rt
yocto/standard/tiny
How about:
yocto/base
yocto/standard/default
yocto/standard/rt
yocto/standard/tiny
"default" makes sense to me since, well, it is what we would use as the
default if no specification in made. Also, it's a shorter way of saying
"general purpose", which describes this policy/config fairly well.
Then the tree is more of a common base ... they are just names after
all! We already have 'yocto' in there, so that's enough specifics for
my taste.
or we flip it around ...
base
standard/yocto
standard/yocto-rt
standard/yocto-tiny
Which looks more like what you proposed, but without the double
specific names.
It's less typing! I like less typing. But if we're going to do that, why
not:
base
standard/poky
standard/poky-rt
standard/poky-tiny
If you would prefer to keep the branches build-system/distro agnostic,
then I think the ideal would be:
base
standard/default
standard/rt
standard/tiny
And, it's even LESS typing! Fingers, wrists, and keyboards everywhere
will be thanking us. ;-)
--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel
