115 2010-07-16 04:57:30 +0000 Improve capabilities for updating & extending the SDK after installation 2015-08-07 12:51:29 +0000 1 1 7 Build System, Metadata & Runtime OE-Core devtools / tool chain 1.7 x86 Multiple VERIFIED DUPLICATE 6559 Medium+ enhancement 1.7 M2 1 josh richard.purdie alexandru.c.georgescu bluelightning bogdanx.a.voiculescu jessica.zhang meta.mr.watcher meta.watcher poky.bs.watcher poky.watcher sgw alexandru.c.georgescu --- --- Yes (doc changes required) oldest_to_newest 8998 0 josh 2010-07-16 04:57:30 +0000 43880 1 bluelightning 2014-06-11 21:03:49 +0000 Currently we put the SDK under package management control. This has a variety of drawbacks and is hard to the central admin/distro engineer to deploy to users, user feedback as not been positive. One alternative proposal is to put the files under control of something more like sstate. The resononing is that sstate is how we solved a very similar problem within the build system itself. There, we set out on a journey with "packaged staging" and ended up throwing away the package maager and using something specifically engineered for the problem. The premise is we have a similar issue here and we'd prefer to get to the better conclusion without the 4 different versions. The advantage of sstate is strong interaction with the main builds by using the same processes (see bug X). Locked sstate is obviously a key part of this proposal. 43915 2 bluelightning 2014-06-13 10:38:33 +0000 For "see bug X" above read "see bug 6435". 44724 3 richard.purdie 2014-07-25 16:48:39 +0000 6559 now has the plans for this *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 6559 *** 45513 4 alexandru.c.georgescu 2014-09-10 11:40:50 +0000 Verified as per above comments.