Core image recipes
Hi all,
Seems we have a few overlapping images in OE-core, with not especially obvious naming. The following two seem very similar in scope (basic X11 image):
meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-core.bb
meta/recipes-extended/images/core-image-basic.bb
Maybe we could just have one of these and call it core-image-x11-base or similar?
Then, we have core-image-base, which whilst it doesn't remove package management files, does not have "package-management" in its features, so it's not a whole lot different to core-image-minimal AFAICT.
Comments?
Cheers,
Paul
Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre
Quoted 6 lines · Paul Eggleton
Hi all,
Seems we have a few overlapping images in OE-core, with not especially obvious naming. The following two seem very similar in scope (basic X11 image):
meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-core.bb
This contains X11_IMAGE_FEATURES
Quoted 2 lines
meta/recipes-extended/images/core-image-basic.bb
This image should NOT contain any X11, this is supposed to be an extention of core-image-minimal with many of the busybox related commands substituted for the real command set. The intention of this image is two fold, first it's the largest image that we test against non-GPLv3 and it's the non-graphical LSB image (I am not sure if there is a spec test defined for that.
Quoted 3 lines
Maybe we could just have one of these and call it core-image-x11-base or similar?
So, no I do not think they can be merged. But renaming core-image-core to core-image-x11-base might make sense, also renaming core-image-basic to core-image-lsb-basic may clear things up.
Quoted 4 lines
Then, we have core-image-base, which whilst it doesn't remove package management files, does not have "package-management" in its features, so it's not a whole lot different to core-image-minimal AFAICT.
On this one I might agree, I know that we have not built that image, nor does it seem to be used by anything else.
Sau!
Quoted 6 lines
Comments?
Cheers,
Paul
Quoted 9 lines · On Friday 26 August 2011 17:18:15 Saul Wold wrote:
Quoted 1 line · Paul Eggleton
meta/recipes-extended/images/core-image-basic.bb
This image should NOT contain any X11, this is supposed to be an extention of core-image-minimal with many of the busybox related commands substituted for the real command set. The intention of this image is two fold, first it's the largest image that we test against non-GPLv3 and it's the non-graphical LSB image (I am not sure if there is a spec test defined for that.
Hmm, I'm not sure what I was thinking earlier, you're right it doesn't appear to have X. I can't access the LSB specs website right now unfortunately but does this have an official name within LSB? It's not "LSB-Core" is it?
Quoted 3 lines
So, no I do not think they can be merged. But renaming core-image-core to core-image-x11-base might make sense, also renaming core-image-basic to core-image-lsb-basic may clear things up.
Sounds good to me. Should I send a patch?
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Then, we have core-image-base, which whilst it doesn't remove package management files, does not have "package-management" in its features, so it's not a whole lot different to core-image-minimal AFAICT.
On this one I might agree, I know that we have not built that image, nor does it seem to be used by anything else.
If there's demand for a minimal image with package management (someone asked for this on IRC just the other day, and it makes sense to me at least) then that's what I'd suggest turning this into. In which case it ought to be called core-image-minimal-pkgmgmt or something similar.
Cheers,
Paul
Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre
Quoted 11 lines · On Friday 26 August 2011 17:39:09 Paul Eggleton wrote:
Quoted 9 lines · On Friday 26 August 2011 17:18:15 Saul Wold wrote:
Quoted 1 line · Paul Eggleton
meta/recipes-extended/images/core-image-basic.bb
This image should NOT contain any X11, this is supposed to be an extention of core-image-minimal with many of the busybox related commands substituted for the real command set. The intention of this image is two fold, first it's the largest image that we test against non-GPLv3 and it's the non-graphical LSB image (I am not sure if there is a spec test defined for that.
Quoted 2 lines
Hmm, I'm not sure what I was thinking earlier, you're right it doesn't appear to have X.
Now I know why I thought this. Because task-core.bb defines task packages that depend on X applications, any recipe that inherits from core-image will force a build of all of the X apps even if it doesn't intend to use them - so both core-image-basic and core-image-base suffer from this. This is not really very good and I think we ought to be splitting up task-core to avoid this. FYI whilst core-image-minimal inherits from core-image it overrides IMAGE_INSTALL and thus doesn't use anything from task-core and therefore does not have this issue.
Quoted 3 lines
I can't access the LSB specs website right now unfortunately but does this have an official name within LSB? It's not "LSB-Core" is it?
Yep, it's LSB-Core (yet another meaning of "core", sigh...)
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Then, we have core-image-base, which whilst it doesn't remove package management files, does not have "package-management" in its features, so it's not a whole lot different to core-image-minimal AFAICT.
On this one I might agree, I know that we have not built that image, nor does it seem to be used by anything else.
If there's demand for a minimal image with package management (someone asked for this on IRC just the other day, and it makes sense to me at least) then that's what I'd suggest turning this into. In which case it ought to be called core-image-minimal-pkgmgmt or something similar.
Any opinions on this one?
Cheers,
Paul
Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre
Quoted 15 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 11 lines · On Friday 26 August 2011 17:39:09 Paul Eggleton wrote:
Quoted 9 lines · On Friday 26 August 2011 17:18:15 Saul Wold wrote:
Quoted 1 line · Paul Eggleton
meta/recipes-extended/images/core-image-basic.bb
This image should NOT contain any X11, this is supposed to be an extention of core-image-minimal with many of the busybox related commands substituted for the real command set. The intention of this image is two fold, first it's the largest image that we test against non-GPLv3 and it's the non-graphical LSB image (I am not sure if there is a spec test defined for that.
Quoted 2 lines
Hmm, I'm not sure what I was thinking earlier, you're right it doesn't appear to have X.
Quoted 9 lines
Now I know why I thought this. Because task-core.bb defines task packages that depend on X applications, any recipe that inherits from core-image will force a build of all of the X apps even if it doesn't intend to use them - so both core-image-basic and core-image-base suffer from this. This is not really very good and I think we ought to be splitting up task-core to avoid this. FYI whilst core-image-minimal inherits from core-image it overrides
IMAGE_INSTALLand thus doesn't use anything from task-core and therefore does not have this issue.
Now I understand what you are talking about, it might best to split this into 2 tasks a task-core moved to recipes-core/tasks and a task-core-x11, what about that?
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
I can't access the LSB specs website right now unfortunately but does this have an official name within LSB? It's not "LSB-Core" is it?
Yep, it's LSB-Core (yet another meaning of "core", sigh...)
We could rename basic to task-lsb-core if that's what your thinking, but as you point out yet another "core".
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Then, we have core-image-base, which whilst it doesn't remove package management files, does not have "package-management" in its features, so it's not a whole lot different to core-image-minimal AFAICT.
On this one I might agree, I know that we have not built that image, nor does it seem to be used by anything else.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
If there's demand for a minimal image with package management (someone asked for this on IRC just the other day, and it makes sense to me at least) then that's what I'd suggest turning this into. In which case it ought to be called core-image-minimal-pkgmgmt or something similar.
Any opinions on this one?
I think this is one that they can create themselves it's would be distro specific and would require additional space allocated to the rootfs, best for the distro do. Remember we are trying to provide foundations and examples. core-image-minimal is supposed to be the smallest possible image with login and shell. It can be used by someone to build on.
Sau!
Quoted 3 lines
Cheers,
Paul
Quoted 3 lines · On Thursday 08 September 2011 04:53:28 you wrote:
Now I understand what you are talking about, it might best to split this into 2 tasks a task-core moved to recipes-core/tasks and a task-core-x11, what about that?
I think that's the only way this can really work, yes.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
I can't access the LSB specs website right now unfortunately but does this have an official name within LSB? It's not "LSB-Core" is it?
Yep, it's LSB-Core (yet another meaning of "core", sigh...)
We could rename basic to task-lsb-core if that's what your thinking, but as you point out yet another "core".
Then again, if you're talking about LSB it makes sense to use the correct terminology.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 4 lines
If there's demand for a minimal image with package management (someone asked for this on IRC just the other day, and it makes sense to me at least) then that's what I'd suggest turning this into. In which case it ought to be called core-image-minimal-pkgmgmt or something similar.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 1 line
Any opinions on this one?
I think this is one that they can create themselves it's would be distro specific and would require additional space allocated to the rootfs, best for the distro do. Remember we are trying to provide foundations and examples. core-image-minimal is supposed to be the smallest possible image with login and shell. It can be used by someone to build on.
That's exactly what I am thinking about. Since we already have such an image (core-image-base) that isn't being used for anything else, why not make it into something useful? Right now since core-image-minimal overrides IMAGE_INSTALL you can't use IMAGE_FEATURES and POKY_EXTRA_INSTALL to extend it, nor does it have package management that some users would be expecting; I think it would be useful to have a base image where those mechanisms do work. (Maybe the term "minimal" wouldn't apply to this image.)
Cheers,
Paul
Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre