On 09/07/2011 06:18 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
On Friday 26 August 2011 17:39:09 Paul Eggleton wrote:
On Friday 26 August 2011 17:18:15 Saul Wold wrote:
On 08/26/2011 02:47 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
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.
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.
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 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, 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?
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!
Cheers,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
