From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [143.182.124.37]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CE4B6CC8A for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:48:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from azsmga002.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.35]) by azsmga102.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Oct 2013 02:48:28 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,491,1378882800"; d="scan'208";a="307447615" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.120.188]) by AZSMGA002.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Oct 2013 02:48:16 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: Chris Larson , "Robert P. J. Day" Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:48:16 +0100 Message-ID: <5784034.W1sd5RUuTd@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.10.5 (Linux/3.8.0-31-generic; KDE/4.10.5; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: can one add a "packagegroup" simply by adding the recipe file for it? X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:48:29 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Saturday 12 October 2013 07:46:02 Chris Larson wrote: > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Robert P. J. Day > wrote: > > wait, i think i might have just answered my own question ... see > > below ... > > > > On Sat, 12 Oct 2013, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > just to make sure i'm not missing anything subtle, i know you can > > > > > > add a "packagegroup" to your build using IMAGE_FEATURES, but given > > > that there are *lots* more packagegroup recipe files in oe-core than > > > have corresponding PACKAGE_GROUP_* definitions in core-image.bbclass: > > > > > > $ find . -name "packagegroup*bb" > > > ./recipes-gnome/packagegroups/ > > > > packagegroup-core-standalone-gmae-sdk-target.bb > > > > > ./recipes-gnome/packagegroups/packagegroup-toolset-native.bb > > > ./recipes-gnome/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-sdk-gmae.bb > > > ./recipes-devtools/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-device-devel.bb > > > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-cross-canadian.bb > > > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-sdk.bb > > > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-ssh-openssh.bb > > > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-standalone-sdk-target.bb > > > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-boot.bb > > > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-tools-profile.bb > > > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-self-hosted.bb > > > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-ssh-dropbear.bb > > > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-tools-debug.bb > > > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-buildessential.bb > > > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-tools-testapps.bb > > > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-base.bb > > > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-nfs.bb > > > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-eclipse-debug.bb > > > ./recipes-graphics/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-x11.bb > > > ./recipes-graphics/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-x11-base.bb > > > ./recipes-graphics/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-x11-xserver.bb > > > ./recipes-graphics/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-clutter.bb > > > ./recipes-graphics/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-directfb.bb > > > ./recipes-qt/packagegroups/packagegroup-qte-toolchain-target.bb > > > ./recipes-qt/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-qt4e.bb > > > ./recipes-qt/packagegroups/packagegroup-qt-toolchain-target.bb > > > ./recipes-qt/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-qt.bb > > > ./recipes-sato/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-x11-sato.bb > > > ./recipes-extended/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-lsb.bb > > > ./recipes-extended/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-basic.bb > > > $ > > > > > > is it accurate to say that you can just as equivalently add the recipe > > > file directly using, say, CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL? is there any > > > functional difference between those two approaches? > > > > > feeling a bit sheepish if this is the answer ... i notice that > > > > core-image.bbclass defines: > > PACKAGE_GROUP_nfs-server = "packagegroup-core-nfs-server" > > > > however, while there is no recipe file named > > "packagegroup-core-nfs-server.bb", there is one named > > > > "packagegroup-core-nfs.bb", which contains: > > inherit packagegroup > > > > PACKAGES = "${PN}-server" > > > > so does defining a PACKAGE_GROUP_* entry in core-image.bbclass allow > > the packagegroup definition search to examine the internals of a > > recipe file to check the definition of "PACKAGES" to find a match? as > > opposed to referring to a recipe file directly > > PACKAGE_GROUP_ = " of binary packages, just as you'd add to IMAGE_INSTALL or > CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL yourself>" > > That's all there is to it. packagegroup-core-nfs-server is a binary > package. PACKAGE_GROUP_nfs-server accepts lists of binary packages, not > lists of recipes. > > Things got a bit more confusing once tasks got renamed to packagegroups, as > the pure data driven package grouping mechanism (PACKAGE_GROUP) already > existed at that time. Now that PACKAGE_GROUP has finally made it into the manual (for 1.5) we've tried to explain that it's not the same thing as a packagegroup. Hopefully it will dispel some of the confusion. We could look at renaming PACKAGE_GROUP to something else in 1.6 (perhaps to IMAGE_FEATURE_PACKAGES or something like that?) if people think that it would help. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre