On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 at 22:34, Aleksandar Nikolic via Lists.Yoctoproject.Org <aleksandar.nikolic010=gmail....@lists.yoctoproject.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > I'll reply on the last message from Alex, but thanks Dmitry for your initial > message and the story how we came from Ångröm to what we have now. Also > thanks to both of you for the extensive feedback! > > On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 09:29 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 at 21:27, Alexander Kanavin <alex.kana...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 at 21:07, Dmitry Baryshkov <dbarysh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If you ask me, pulling pre-built packages into a yocto image is in > itself a horrible hack that goes against yocto philosophy, and I would > not want yocto to help that or support it in any way. > > ... > > So, as much as I like OE, if you are thinking about a binary distro, I > think you'd better use some existing purposely binary distro (like > Debian, Armbian or something from the RPM world). If you can afford > having package management on the device, it's not tightly resource > constrained. And thus there is no need to go Yocto way. > > I think we're talking about two different things here, so just in case > I'd clarify the difference. Point two is about using bitbake to > somehow pull a big pile of prebuilt binary packages from the net and > assemble a target image out of them. I don't like that at all. > > Ugh, no, thank you. I also hate that idea. > > Yep, thanks for separating these two use cases. Regarding the former one > (pulling a bunch of prebuilt binary packages from a server and assembling a > target image out of them ), some coworkers want exactly this and I am trying > to persuade them not to go down that path and just build from source. IMHO, > even though installing previously tested binaries might bring some assurance > for the QM team, it brings a hell lot of issues with it which are easily > avoided by building from source. > > > On the other hand having a yocto-based binary distro, e.g. a target > image with package management which feels like the traditional linux > distributions is fine with me. I'm not particularly interested in it, > and I'm also not sure it can work well, but people are welcome to work > on it if they find it interesting or useful. > > Yep, I was thinking about the yocto-with-feeds. > > Yes, I also think this use case makes more sense than the first one, but I > also see it to be used during development only, so devs can install and use > packages faster (than rebuilding the whole image). Updating a device in the > field with a package management system is however in my opinion a no-go (from > the reasons previously stated by all).
Consider using shared SSTATE, it saves you from all the rebuilds, while keeping Yocto internals intact and sane. -- With best wishes Dmitry
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#63957): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/63957 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/108862936/21656 Group Owner: yocto+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
