Minutes: Yocto Project Technical Team Meeting - Tuesday, June 7, 2016 8:00 AM US Pacific Time
Attendees: Saul, David Wolfe, Joshua, Belen, Ross, Mark, Bill
Agenda:
* Opens collection - 5 min (Stephen)
* Yocto Project status - 5 min (Stephen/team)
. YP 2.2 M1 took longer to release
- Stabilize it
- Performance issues
- GCC, GTK, Python3
- Number of high bugs
- Released
YP 2.2 M2
- selftest patch
- Completed QA
Higher number of bugs across multiple areas
- Fixed Performance issues
Kernel enabled DEBUG which increased size and time Parsing linux-yocto-dev increased time. YP 2.2 M3 is the final milestone for enhancements
- M3 Closes on Aug 29th
YP 2.1.1
- rc1 is getting QA'ed now
- Possible release next week pending QA completion YP 2.0.3 Planning
- Has about 20 patches since 2.0.2 release
- Possible post 2.2 timeframe (November)
https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Yocto_Project_v2.2_Status
https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Yocto_2.2_Schedule
https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Yocto_2.2_Features
* Opens - 10 min
Package Manager for 2.2 and beyond
- probably smart for 2.2
- looking into dnf for future
Kernel Version will be either 4.7 or 4.8
- Waiting for 4.8 rc2/3 and check with GregKH Poky - LTS/LTM Branch
- Community Driven
- 2 Years
- Companies continue to push on older branches that they are interested in.
- Most patches would be in Oe-Core meta-data
* Team Sharing - 10 min
RP has branch with multi-config in parallel
- fixes various other tools
- Distributed builds in 2.2 is unlikely due to resource constraits
Thanks,
Sau!
Quoted 2 lines · Stephen K
Attendees: Saul, David Wolfe, Joshua, Belen, Ross, Mark, Bill
....
Quoted 6 lines
Poky - LTS/LTM Branch
- Community Driven
- 2 Years
- Companies continue to push on older branches that they are
interested in.
- Most patches would be in Oe-Core meta-data
This kind of jumped out at me. Can anyone explain why the Yocto Project needs an LTS version of the reference distribution?
Philip
Quoted 10 lines
* Team Sharing - 10 min
RP has branch with multi-config in parallel
- fixes various other tools
- Distributed builds in 2.2 is unlikely due to resource constraitsThanks,
Sau!
Quoted 6 lines · Philip Balister
Quoted 2 lines · Stephen K
Attendees: Saul, David Wolfe, Joshua, Belen, Ross, Mark, Bill
....
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Poky - LTS/LTM Branch
- Community Driven
- 2 Years
- Companies continue to push on older branches that they are
interested in.
- Most patches would be in Oe-Core meta-dataThis kind of jumped out at me. Can anyone explain why the Yocto Project needs an LTS version of the reference distribution?
I am glad you asked.
In order for a Yocto Member to be Yocto Compatible, any changes made to Bitbake or OE-core have to be submitted to the mailing list. If I have to submit changes then is makes sense that there be a central place like a repo where these changes can live. We have this for the first year. MontaVista and I am sure other Member's support products beyond the first year. It seems natural to have a process in place to continue the behavior and work Yocto Members are required to perform to maintain Yocto compatibility. Or are you saying Yocto Compatible is only good for 1 year?
It not so much having an LTS Poky as much as having LTS branches for OE core and bitbake. This means Poky would not have to be kept updated nor would the Yocto Project need to build or QA the LTS branches.
As I see it, an LTS branch would only exist if there is a need and is supported by the ones who desire the LTS branch. I am sure there will be some prerequisites in doing this. I don't see this as a bad thing for the community or the Project.
regards,
Armin
Quoted 13 lines
Philip
Quoted 9 lines
* Team Sharing - 10 min
RP has branch with multi-config in parallel
- fixes various other tools
- Distributed builds in 2.2 is unlikely due to resource constraitsThanks,
Sau!
Quoted 13 lines · * akuster808 <[email protected]> [160803 17:18]:
Quoted 11 lines · Philip Balister
Quoted 1 line · Stephen K
Attendees: Saul, David Wolfe, Joshua, Belen, Ross, Mark, Bill
....
Quoted 6 lines
Poky - LTS/LTM Branch
- Community Driven
- 2 Years
- Companies continue to push on older branches that they are
interested in.
- Most patches would be in Oe-Core meta-data
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
This kind of jumped out at me. Can anyone explain why the Yocto Project needs an LTS version of the reference distribution?
It not so much having an LTS Poky as much as having LTS branches for OE core and bitbake. This means Poky would not have to be kept updated nor would the Yocto Project need to build or QA the LTS branches.
I'm pretty sure that this is the point Philip was after, that it really doesn't make sense for Poky.
LTS branches in oe-core and bitbake, OTOH, makes sense, and would be appreciated by quite some.
Cheers,
Anders
Signature · 2 lines
Anders Darander, Senior System Architect ChargeStorm AB / eStorm AB
Quoted 21 lines · On Aug 3, 2016, at 8:17 AM, akuster808 <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 6 lines · Philip Balister
Quoted 2 lines · Stephen K
Attendees: Saul, David Wolfe, Joshua, Belen, Ross, Mark, Bill
....
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Poky - LTS/LTM Branch
- Community Driven
- 2 Years
- Companies continue to push on older branches that they are
interested in.
- Most patches would be in Oe-Core meta-dataThis kind of jumped out at me. Can anyone explain why the Yocto Project needs an LTS version of the reference distribution?
I am glad you asked.
Quoted 9 lines
In order for a Yocto Member to be Yocto Compatible, any changes made to Bitbake or OE-core have to be submitted to the mailing list. If I have to submit changes then is makes sense that there be a central place like a repo where these changes can live. We have this for the first year. MontaVista and I am sure other Member's support products beyond the first year. It seems natural to have a process in place to continue the behavior and work Yocto Members are required to perform to maintain Yocto compatibility. Or are you saying Yocto Compatible is only good for 1 year?
Dont we accept patches indefinitely as long as they keep coming? so in theory every branch is LTS for someone if one cares enough about compatibility with compliance programs. However, LTS does provide a cushion for decision makers, practically, I see we are doing it ever since.
Quoted 34 lines
It not so much having an LTS Poky as much as having LTS branches for OE core and bitbake. This means Poky would not have to be kept updated nor would the Yocto Project need to build or QA the LTS branches.
As I see it, an LTS branch would only exist if there is a need and is supported by the ones who desire the LTS branch. I am sure there will be some prerequisites in doing this. I don't see this as a bad thing for the community or the Project.
regards,
ArminQuoted 13 lines
Philip
Quoted 9 lines
* Team Sharing - 10 min
RP has branch with multi-config in parallel
- fixes various other tools
- Distributed builds in 2.2 is unlikely due to resource constraitsThanks,
Sau!
--
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Quoted 31 lines · Khem Raj
Quoted 21 lines · On Aug 3, 2016, at 8:17 AM, akuster808 <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 6 lines · Philip Balister
Quoted 2 lines · Stephen K
Attendees: Saul, David Wolfe, Joshua, Belen, Ross, Mark, Bill
....
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Poky - LTS/LTM Branch
- Community Driven
- 2 Years
- Companies continue to push on older branches that they are
interested in.
- Most patches would be in Oe-Core meta-dataThis kind of jumped out at me. Can anyone explain why the Yocto Project needs an LTS version of the reference distribution?
I am glad you asked.
Quoted 9 lines
In order for a Yocto Member to be Yocto Compatible, any changes made to Bitbake or OE-core have to be submitted to the mailing list. If I have to submit changes then is makes sense that there be a central place like a repo where these changes can live. We have this for the first year. MontaVista and I am sure other Member's support products beyond the first year. It seems natural to have a process in place to continue the behavior and work Yocto Members are required to perform to maintain Yocto compatibility. Or are you saying Yocto Compatible is only good for 1 year?
Quoted 1 line
Dont we accept patches indefinitely as long as they keep coming?
Are far as I know we do.
Quoted 2 lines
so in theory every branch is LTS for someone if one cares enough about compatibility with compliance programs.
Only if patches make it into a stable branch will they count, it makes it more official. It is the overhead placed upon Richard and his minions to take those patches and check them into the appropriate stable branches. This drops off dramatically once a stable branch transitions to EOL.
However, LTS does provide
Quoted 38 lines
a cushion for decision makers, practically, I see we are doing it ever since.
Quoted 34 lines
It not so much having an LTS Poky as much as having LTS branches for OE core and bitbake. This means Poky would not have to be kept updated nor would the Yocto Project need to build or QA the LTS branches.
As I see it, an LTS branch would only exist if there is a need and is supported by the ones who desire the LTS branch. I am sure there will be some prerequisites in doing this. I don't see this as a bad thing for the community or the Project.
regards,
ArminQuoted 13 lines
Philip
Quoted 9 lines
* Team Sharing - 10 min
RP has branch with multi-config in parallel
- fixes various other tools
- Distributed builds in 2.2 is unlikely due to resource constraitsThanks,
Sau!
--
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto