> On Sep 3, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Otavio Salvador > <otavio.salva...@ossystems.com.br> wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Richard Purdie >> <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>> On Thu, 2015-09-03 at 13:22 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: >>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfi...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> To put this another way, I think it is probably reasonable that we >>>>>> should be able to build an image from OE-Core with basic functionality >>>>>> like networking without busybox? >>>>> >>>>> That's what I'd support. If everything you need for the functionality >>>>> with busy >>>>> box is in oe-core, to me, it doesn't make sense to go outside core to get >>>>> that >>>>> same functionality without busybox. >>>> >>>> irrespective of this change. I see yet another configuration with this >>>> into OE-core, overall OE-Core should get smaller >>>> and case does not sound convincing to me. You dont want to use busybox >>>> in a fairly large image which has other GPLv2 software in >>>> it. Thats fine but doesnt look like a common usecase to me >>> >>> Nobody mentioned GPLv2, that isn't relevant here. >>> >>> I have heard OE being dismissed since it can't produce an image without >>> busybox in it. The implication is we can't build "big" Linux, only small >>> embedded things. The pieces we need busybox for are tiny and should be >>> easy to replace (like this does). >>> >>> So I can see a fairly compelling argument for OE-Core to be able to >>> generate a busybox free image with standard functionality just from a PR >>> perspective. From what I gather we have people willing to test and >>> maintain it too... >> >> If people were demanding it, it would have been moved for >> meta-networking ages ago, it seems it is not the case. > > ... or they were just holding it elsewhere, since not everyone has the > time to get things merged to core. In particular if they think it will be > a battle.
thats how we bloated oe-classic. Oh people might need it because I need it therefore slam it in I have written a packagegroup to replace busybox but I never thought it was so core. > >> >> So my vote is: >> >> - move to meta-networking > > And what if the use cases don't want/need meta-networking ? We have > the submission and one use case, and one of the reasons it was sent > to core was to keep a finite set of layers and recipes to build such an image. > > Joe/Randy ? > > It is this sort of thing that forces use of combo layers or the whitelist > classes :) You can also help in making those layers meet the quality criteria you need instead of being pick what I need throw the rest out approach. > >> - for 2.1 we see if it goes to core or not > > But without criteria for success .. what does that get us ? What is the > case that needs to be made for a move to core in 2.1, that isn't being > made now ? > > Yes, I'm playing devil's advocate on this thread .. since I want to see > this sort of thing clearly defined. if its required by more than 1 distro. Is duplicated in other layers because the layer it resides in is not used by a distro. It replaces a core functionality in OE-Core. It has to be a building block and not a leaf package e.g. These Would be some of things that may be thought of.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
