On 6/12/23 11:16 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 10:24:27AM -0500, Andrew Davis via
lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
On 6/9/23 3:39 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 02:13:23PM -0500, Randolph Sapp via
lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
On 6/9/23 13:32, Ryan Eatmon wrote:
On 6/6/2023 6:18 PM, Randolph Sapp via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
On 6/6/23 18:15, Randolph Sapp via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
On 6/6/23 17:15, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 02:10:19PM -0500, [email protected] wrote:
From: Randolph Sapp <[email protected]>
Make things more readable and reliable by useing the built in boolean
check instead of python's type casting. Drop the array
indexing in favor
of a more direct if else statememnt.
Heh, it's just a matter of personal preference :) Array
indexing conditionals
is how OE used to do things from the early days and I'm well
used to that. But
these days using Python if/else directly gained lots of
traction, so why not?
Also fix the virtual provider for login manager. There
should only be 1
login provider and it should be shadow-base for systemd
*or* busybox for
sysVinit systemd.
Also explicitly remove the sysvinit distro feature if ARAGO_SYSVINIT
isn't set, because whatever arago inherits expects sysvinit for some
reason. This should fix the duplicate init.d and systemd service files
we've been seeing.
How much testing have you done with this change?
The reason it was done this way is because many packages only provided
sysvinit rc scripts and not systemd unit files and we were relying on
systemd-sysv-generator to handle those, which has dependency
on "sysvinit"
PACKAGECONFIG and DISTRO_FEATURES. There were fixes to
handle duplications
when both sysvinit rc script and systemd unit file are
provided by a package
and install only one of them. It was better than not having
any startup script
for a package at all.
Everything in the layers below us provides both from
everything I've seen. The only incompliant layers are
meta-arago and maybe something in meta-ti still expecting
sysVinit scripts.
If you set both sysVinit and systemd as a distro feature it
actually *confuses* core packages and they end up shipping
both, which clash. Systemd typically just resolves this by
forcing everything with a sysvinit script into the sysvinit
compatibility stage leading to increased boot time because
that's all still serialized.
If there are any packages still not compliant that you can find,
tell me and I will fix them myself. Seeing mix-matched sysVinit
and systemd scripts in the same target makes me irrationally
angry.
Uh oh... This patch causes tisdk-tiny-image.bb and
tisdk-bootstrap-image.bb to fail:
ERROR: Nothing RPROVIDES 'packagegroup-arago-sysvinit-boot'
I think, if I remember correctly, sysvinit was chosen because of a
requirement on the size of the image. systemd made the rootfs too
big to fit within the constraints.
Ah, indeed, that was another reason systemd and sysvinit had to be both
enabled in the DISTRO_FEATURES...
Nishanth might have more details if you want to debate it. But
there is an internal Confluence page that lists all of the Ease of
Use requirement JIRAs.
No one is opposed to moving away from sysvinit, but we need to
make sure that we are meeting that requirement.
That's fair. I assumed our sysvinit build images were setting the
ARAGO_SYSVINIT variable as part of their base config (or at least
something similar).
ARAGO_SYSVINIT flag controls init selection for the main images (default,
base, thinlinux...), but tiny and bootstrap images ignore it and directly
pull in SysVinit regardless of the selection.
Default, base, thinlinux, etc.. are rather large images, not sure what
is gained from SysVinit.
What is gained is flexibility. When switching to systemd, some customers still
wanted to be able to use SysVinit. Not sure if that's still the case though.
If they want to use sysvinit, then they can modify the distro configs.
And for the super small bring-up images like
bootstrap, we use very little from meta-arago. Would it make more sense
to move those bring-up images out of Arago? Maybe have a small bring-up-
distro layer. Having a distro be both systemd and sysvinit is odd..
That would require to build those images separately from the rest of the
images and from bundling everything into a single TI SDK tarball. I.e. a
multi-step process - build one set of images with one distro, then the
rest with a different distro, plus package a bundle tarball. And that will
result in a very poor package re-use between the images and 2 flows, since
distro-level config changes pretty much invalidate most of shared state...
Then lets not ship those bring-up images with the SDK tarball then. Those
are development images, so we should assume folks using them know how to
build OE.
I feel like I've suggested this before, I cant figure out what half
our images are for as is, maybe we try to cut down the number. We could
also name them to match Ubuntu as the 3 we need have similar uses:
* tisdk-default -> Desktop
* tisdk-base -> Server
* tisdk-thinlinux -> IoT
Andrew
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#14595):
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-arago/message/14595
Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/99370291/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-arago/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
