Re: Moving angstrom under the yocto banner

David Stewart

From: yocto-bounces@... [mailto:yocto-
bounces@...] On Behalf Of Richard Purdie
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 2:11 PM

The criteria I see for being part of the Yocto Project are:

a) Sharing the project's objectives (e.g. making embedded Liunx
development easier)
b) Willing to be part of the Yocto Project's governance structure
c) Bringing something new/beneficial to the Yocto Project (often with
mutual benefit)
d) Have some kind of sustainable resource plan
I would add:
e) there should be interoperability with the other parts of the YP.

Part of the benefit we're trying to create is that if someone invests in YP
for their device, they should get benefit from the whole thing. If a board
manufacturer creates a BSP for YP v1.2, there should be no doubt whatsoever
that it will work with that system. Can anyone assure me that such a BSP
would work under Angstrom?

Or I develop a layer for an app on Angstrom. Do I know for sure that it will for
sure work on MEL, which has YP as its upstream?

See where I'm going with this?

Finally, Dr. Kooi has stated that he doesn't see YP as an upstream. In fact, many
of the OSVs (like Wind River, Mentor Graphics and now ENEA - yeah!) absolutely
want to use YP as their upstream. So I'm hoping we could change the definition
of YP/Poky/Angstrom so Angstrom could us Poky as its upstream ... no? Too

Anyway, if we can't get to this level of interoperability, then adding Angstrom
to the Yocto project may add too much confusion.


Join { to automatically receive all group messages.