[shiroiuma]

>orgs are better building directly on Yocto (or BuildRoot) without a vendor in the middle

Going on a tangent here, but does anyone else also agree that BuildRoot is much, much nicer to work with as a dev than Yocto? I've had to work with both and BuildRoot was easy, just like building a Linux kernel with 'make menuconfig', whereas Yocto was downright painful.

[i_am_a_peasant]

I worked with Yocto for about 8 years and about as much with buildroot.

They both get the job done but I find that yocto recipes are more tractable. You see clearly what comes from the main git tree and what patches a vendor adds on top.

I've seen some really ugly chimeras built with buildroot as a base..

[usr1106]

Not a real expert with those systems, but I have used both. I believe buildroot is much smaller (as in much less binaries can be built) than Yocto. Yocto has its learning curve, but there is a lot readily available and you can do a lot more. It's extensible by desgn. You can build basically everything, but not without understanding the principles by just searching a few odd SO answers.

I have used buildroot for an initramfs. If you have configured a kernel before, you get going in an afternoon.

[dezgeg]

The main problem of buildroot is the fact you need to rebuild from scratch all the time. Yocto has properly working incremental builds.

Yocto is definitely more flexible, which can be a curse as it gives architecture astronauts more chances to split up all the stuff it several repos and dozens of files.

[AlotOfReading]

Yocto has a hell of a learning curve, but you also don't end up in situations where your build is silently broken on a regular basis.