From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R1I60-0002wv-2S for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:23:16 +0200 Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Sep 2011 06:18:12 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,345,1312182000"; d="scan'208";a="48896135" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.120.53]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Sep 2011 06:18:12 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: "Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer" Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:18:10 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-10-generic-pae; KDE/4.6.2; i686; ; ) References: <201108261047.10782.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> <4E57C747.2020104@linux.intel.com> <201108261739.10025.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <201108261739.10025.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201109071418.10285.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: Core image recipes X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:23:16 -0000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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. > 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...) > > > 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? Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre