On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 01:03:04PM -0500, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > 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...
BTW, you should still be able to find the corresponding internal Confluence page with that activity and related discussions. > 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. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#14193): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-arago/message/14193 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]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
