Hi Koen, On 27/06/12 22:58, Koen Kooi wrote: > I have no problem with poky-the-distro, I have a problem with > poky-the-buildsystem. I warned mallum about this confusion years ago, > but you know how stubborn he can be :)
The Yocto naming confusion is entirely of Yocto making, nothing at all to do with days of yore. There was never any confusion about what Poky was before Yocto, just unhappiness of some that Poky was not just a distro. :) Poky-the-buildsystem was simply necessary. OE-the-buildsystem is a wonderful, rich, community project, but one in a constant and unpredictable flux. This is great for tinkering, but PITA when trying to develop and long term maintain a product (much bigger problem than what sparked this thread for sure). In the absence of a clearly defined process for the OE-the-buildsystem Poky had to bring sanity to the buildsystem itself and could not be just a distro. It introduced QA, releases, it focused on facilitating customization and manageable upgrade paths (and even provided some documentation!). Yocto is based on Poky; if it was not, it would need to create something just like Poky (the alternative would be asserting complete control over OE as a whole, not good I think). OE has benefited from the Poky effort over the last seven years, and it is a better ecosystem for it. At the same time, the OE systemd situation (a major system level change without adequate consideration of the upgrade path) suggests to me that the need for a sanitized OE-derivative remains. I shut up now. Really. Maybe. :-) (Perhaps I should add that I am not formally affiliated with the Yocto project in any way, my opinions are really my own, not someone else's or driven by a policy, I have a long history with Poky, so I am definitely biased in a particular way, I work with Poky on daily basis, and I tinker with Poky after hours.) Tomas _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
