On 05/09/2012 09:21 AM, Phil Blundell wrote: > On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 08:46 -0500, Jason Wessel wrote: >> External distributions based on the oe-core will typically include >> bitbake in the top level directory. The idea is to make it easy >> for external distributions to easily assemble a distribution >> with a pristine version of oe-core, add avoid the git untracked messages: > > Presumably any non-trivial external distribution is going to include > other metadata as well, in which case they're going to have to > edit .gitignore for themselves anyway. So it doesn't really seem as > though having bitbake be mentioned there in oe-core buys much. > > On the other hand, actually moving bitbake inside the oe-core repository > seems like an idea which might have some merit. It's not obvious that > having it in its own tree really achieves anything other than making > release engineering slightly more difficult.
It appeared to me that the bitbake was maintained by an entirely different group of people, but oe-core is completely tied to bitbake. It might always be the case that it will still be a separate repository and perhaps this is a side effect of how the poky git vs the development of the Yocto Project are maintained, with the other work flow being to assemble a distribution. Technically the poky git has the same issue, but you do not see it because of the way it is managed. Ideally I would have liked to see that change as well, but I understand it is done that way for simplicity vs using git submodules or subgit trees with a tool like repo or others. It would be interesting to hear a few more view points on this topic. Jason. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
