On 20 May 2013 18:05, Fathi Boudra <fathi.bou...@linaro.org> wrote: > See http://cards.linaro.org/browse/CARD-481
> We want to consolidate our approaches into a single approach that > scales across distributions. >> so from the perspective of a Linaro user, or a customer who will care only >> about OE, and there will be such cases, we need to make sure that we don't >> create a tool that is going to be counter-productive vs a 'vanilla' OE >> solution. > > That's something to discuss... We don't have "customers". The > engineering builds are done to support our engineering effort, in the > fastest and cost effective way > The hwpack concept is still valid but not as it used to be (hardware > specific abstraction). We still want to have a single hwpack that > works for the supported distributions. "We still want" - Well I'd like to see the list of "we" ;) hwpacks were a good idea for ubuntu, but even they no longer use the concept on ubuntu touch. >From the OE side, burying hwpacks and using OE images directly would make our engineering effort greatly faster, simpler and more cost effective. I don't think hwpacks are requested by fedora engineers either. > There's pros/cons for both solutions. I see it as: common approach > (hwpack+rootfs) vs native/distro specific approach. Talk to you at the > connect session :) The "common approach" is more like "linaro specific approach". If we do linaro-specific tools, we might save some of our own time - but the distributions and endusers will have to duplicate our work in their own setups. If we work with native/distro specific tools and contribute back, our changes ripple back to the actual end users. The ARM ecostystem as whole benefits. Yes discuss at connect makes sense, just food of thought... Riku _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
