On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 04:09:37PM -0700, Chris Larson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Stewart, David C > <david.c.stew...@intel.com> wrote: > >>From: yocto-boun...@yoctoproject.org [mailto:yocto- > >>boun...@yoctoproject.org] 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? > > Given that an OE priority has *always* been that distro, machine, and > image are largely independent, orthogonal components, and generally > speaking one can combine any combination of the three and have at > least a good shot at functionality, I'd say that if such a BSP did not > work under Angstrom, that'd be a bug that we'd all agree would need to > be fixed. As far as I know, this priority and attribute of the system > still exists.
This is also my understanding and expectation. -- Tom _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
