On 1/28/2025 2:43 PM, Ryan Eatmon wrote:
On 1/28/2025 2:30 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 01:58:08PM -0600, Etheridge, Darren wrote:
On 1/23/2025 3:20 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
A more generic question:
There are now multiple configs with meta-browser and meta-selinux
listed:
* arago-scarthgap: both meta-browser and meta-selinux are disabled
* arago-scarthgap-chromium: meta-browser is enabled, meta-selinux is
disabled
* arago-scarthgap-selinux: meta-browser is disabled, meta-selinux is
enabled
Since there are now separate configs, should they be cleaned up and
layers
that are disabled or unused removed from them? That way when you
need to bump
say meta-browser, you just need to update one config, not all 3.
This whole thing was a compromise because we didn't want to take the
hit of building Chromium for every config. But we did want to give
the ability to enable Chromium easily in every config. So we just
comment it out and leave it up to the end user to uncomment it if
they want Chromium to get built and burn several hours. Maybe there
is a nicer way to do it, but at the time this is what we came up
with that worked for everybody involved.
Yes, back in Dunfell days this was exactly the case - there was a
single main
config file with meta-browser being commented out (as it also depended on
deprecated Python2). Before that I kept it at an old commit that still
allowed
Chromium to be built with gcc and didn't require clang (and very long
builds).
Anyway, with Kirkstone and Scarthgap, you now have separate configs
for builds
with meta-browser/Chromium enabled, as well as meta-selinux enabled.
My point
being, since there are separate configus for such builds, why still keep
commented out references in the main config?
I.e. people can use arago-scarthgap-chromium config directly to get a
build
with Chromium enabled, instead of manually modifying the main
arago-scarthgap
config in order to enable Chromium...
I think part of the issue is if you use our "locked down" configs with
the SHAs for each of the layers that each snapshot build produces, then
you can just uncomment the line and move on. If it is a separate
config, then you need to add the chromium line to the locked down
config. Does that make sense?
This is exactly what our Jenkins job does to test RC's with Chromium
enabled.
It also sort of implicitly keeps the version of Chromium that is tested
with any release easily accessible from any of the configs. Although I
agree this can be achieved through other means.
Moreover, why only scarthgap is being updated? Are there any changes
to the
master configs?
Master points to HEAD of the meta-browser layer, as such the
recipes don't make any sense for master, as they really attempt to
enable GPU support on a specific version of Chromium. If you build
master you get whatever the latest Chromium is on the meta-browser
layer without any of these tweaks applied.
Ah, yeah, missed the fact that master configs also have meta-browser
pointing
to the HEAD. Thanks for clarifying this.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#15770):
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-arago/message/15770
Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/110778644/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-arago/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
