On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 10:52:34AM -0600, Ryan Eatmon wrote: > > > On 1/27/2023 9:52, Andrew Davis wrote: > >On 1/26/23 6:51 PM, Randolph Sapp via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > >>On Thu, Jan 26 2023 at 03:58:01 PM -0500, Denys Dmytriyenko > >><[email protected]> wrote: > >>>I'm realizing now that simply depending on "opengl" > >>>DISTRO_FEATURES won't be > >>>enough, unfortunately. > >>> > >>>The issue is that DISTRO_FEATURES are set by the distro globally for all > >>>machines, whether with accelerated graphics, display w/o acceleration or > >>>completely headless. E.g. when building for J7200, "opengl" > >>>will be set, but > >>>none of the graphics packages should be built or installed > >>>into the image. > >>> > >>>So, some sort of check for MACHINE_FEATURES or PREFERRED_PROVIDER (less > >>>elegant) would still be needed in some places... > >> > >>Arguably that's a package group / distro target issue. I believe > >>when a user selects the default image with all features enabled > >>for J721E and J721S2 the package selection should be equivalent > >>(or at least as equivalent as possible with the stuff going on > >>now in meta-ti) to align with the distro features selected. I > >>believe the solution to this is to add a headless target/image > >>that removes Qt, GTK, etc. from the selected package groups and > >>to suggest the use of that instead if users want a truly > >>headless distro. > >> > >> > > > >Agree here, I believe this was the solution we came up with in > >our call the other day. > > > >I'd go as far as suggesting we drop the "default" image and try to match > >Ubuntu naming here. Have 3 images: Desktop, Server, and IoT. (IoT is > >a rebranded tisdk-thinlinux-image). User selects the one that matches > >their usecase, no need to force them into one bucket automatically based > >on their hardware. > > > >Andrew > > > That level of renaming will likely require a broader audience. I > agree that it would be clearer naming to follow what other > distributions do and not invent our own names.
Agree. As I mentioned on the call yesterday, last round of image (re-)naming took quite a while and lots of effort to get everyone on the product side aligned and agree... Moreover, images is just part of the problem - some thought needs to be put into how the devkit is produced (and or named) and the top-level SDK product bundle, which combines all images, devkit and docs/manifests. -- Denys -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#14192): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-arago/message/14192 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/96510217/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-arago/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
