Re: [ptxdist] Yocto

["Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <enrico.weigelt@gr13.net>]

On 09.09.2017 18:33, Erwin Rol wrote:

> Exactly my problem, Yocto is becoming the Ubuntu of embedded Linux, and > like Ubuntu not everything is good about it.

apropos Ubuntu: just had a ugly problem w/ my trusty notebook, which
ate up my precious time: dbus didn't come up (just because a dumb
file - /etc/machine-id - was missing), and therefore nothing else
(except plain console) worked. oh, and some of their kernel versions
suddenly miss wifi drivers, etc, etc ...

> But vendors like Intel, > Xilinx, TI, etc. don't even know ptxdist exists, they all only offer> 
some Yocto layers.
chip vendors usually aren't the right parties for bsp's anyways,
leave that to board vendors, or the folks here :p

>> And the whole bitbake machinery is really slow. > > Over all I don't think bitbake is much slower than ptxdist, when> 
building from 0 to 100%.

I'm talking about the engine itself. It always took me several minutes
of metadata processing before it even starts jobs. Especially while
hacking on some code, it's (IMHO) a big con if it metadata stuff
sometimes takes even longer than the actual build.

> But when you want to do edit->compile->update iterations the "startup"
> time for bitbake seems to be a killer. With ptxdist I just call
> "./ptxdist compile bla" and I have no noticeable delay compared to
> native compiling. That is something I extensively use with ptxdist, and
> for Yocto that doesn't work (at least I don't know how) :-/

Exactly. I need incremental builds almost all the day, so yocto would
just slow me down by magnitudes.

At that point I really wonder whether there's some really good pro
argument that might compensate that big con.


--mtx

_______________________________________________
ptxdist mailing list
ptxdist@pengutronix.de