sash:
I can not see any benefits for communities who uses build systems other than bitbake.

mic:
Alexander: So what? This proposal doesn't save the world, right. It tackles one area in one buildsystem in which it would lead to a significat improvement. You are not starting to downrank other applications to bump your favourite ones or are you? :-/

me:
Lol sash behave. We gave you the chanche to work with us...

sash:
bitbake not means all handheld devices and all developers ... I ask again which benefits can get with it non bitbake people?

me:
ash, immediately stop that foolish and childish behaviour!
We at hh.org have no GPE vs. Opie, Qt vs. Gtk+, X vs. Y battles. We will not start one for pdaXrom... Either behave or leave it is that simple. We are a open and liberal community, if you can't cope with that leave, but don't get childish. True GPE proposals don't help Opie, but hh.org hosts many, even competing projects and we are all friendly to each other.

This BitBake proposal helps BitBake, this will help OpenEmbedded which will help the OpenZaurus, Familiar, NSLU2, WRT communities. Alone NSLU2 has 20.000 users, which will have a benefit from a improved version of BitBake.  20.000+ may not be the world, but it will gretaly benefit the users of Free Software.

Also you don't even know what BitBake is, how can you judge on it? That is childish and foolish. BitBake is not a BuildSystem, it is a Task Executor. It can execute any task you want it to execute. OpenEmbedded is a meta data repository with defined tasks that are executed by BitBake. BitBake could even execute the tasks of your BuildSystem, if you wanted to.

Summary: you are acting childish, and you do not even know what BitBake is... I'm slowly lacking the words for your actions.