Hi folks, I met with Richard Purdie at ELCE, and he graciously discussed some of the fundamental differences of approach between the Yocto project and Baserock. TL; DR Yocto is aiming for (and achieving) wide adoption, and this involves compromises which are different from Baserock's simplifying decisions. Key points: - his main awareness of Baserock prior to the conversation was our choice to aim for only native builds, which he had pegged as 'a bit crazy' - I think Richard agrees that YAML is a good idea, but bitbake has its custom format as a result of its history and popularity - it's unrealistic for Yocto to expect everything in git, since that's not the real world situation for most adopters - given the above, patch files in the recipe tree are the best solution - the Yocto mirror (and pre-mirror) approach is designed and intended to deal with use-cases we care about, e.g. upstream moves, or internet goes down, and CI/release process should be unaffected. When we talked further Richard did acknowledge that there's been some recent discussion/bug about a corner-case where upstream is a git repo, but in general Richard believes that if configuration is correct, the problems seen in (eg) GDP releases are normally avoided. - Yocto does care about reproducible builds (in the bit-for-bit sense), and there has been work ongoing to remove host config pollution. Richard believes that bitbake does enough to isolate toolchain from host, does not see any difference vs our toolchain bootstrap approach. Maybe I failed to explain this properly. It was a friendly discussion, and I'm grateful for Richard's consideration. br Paul