On Oct 28, 2019, at 6:23 AM, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Rich, > > most of what you are writing is unfortunately quite far from the actual > problems regarding Yocto LTS. > > Yocto LTS might not happen at all due to a lack of resource commitments. > > Discussing what additional work could be done for Yocto LTS is > therefore not productive, unless you are the one doing this work. > > If you manage to convince your employer or a customer to make > a resource commitment for Yocto LTS, everyone would be extremely > grateful since this would help solving the biggest problem.
As stated at the beginning of the thread, few companies can alone resource the work needed for LTS support, given the complexity of the software supply chain. As stated in the previous email, Linux Foundation, Google, Microsoft and RedHat today announced their pooled investment of resources into a test project (Kernel CI) with historical resource challenges. If long-term support for OpenEmbedded is not receiving sufficient resource investment, one question is: which similar projects *are* receiving investment? Two examples were provided, one based on OE/Yocto. Has Yocto asked Microsoft to contribute resources to Yocto LTS? Another question that can be posed to potential contributors: what changes to Yocto LTS scope (phase 1 or 2) would enable contribution of pooled resources? OpenXT uses OpenEmbedded to develop systems with hardware-assisted security properties. If Yocto LTS can reduce our existing test burden on real hardware, there is potential for collaboration. Currently-scoped Yocto LTS would not be a good fit for testing security properties, especially if the virtual test hardware is based on Ubuntu instead of OpenEmbedded meta-virtualization + bitbake guarantees for software supply chain integrity. Rich _______________________________________________ Openembedded-architecture mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-architecture
