can one add a "packagegroup" simply by adding the recipe file for it?

can one add a "packagegroup" simply by adding the recipe file for it?

[Robert P. J. Day]

  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?

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: can one add a "packagegroup" simply by adding the recipe file for it?

[Robert P. J. Day]

  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 which must *exactly*
match the name of the recipe file?

  thanks for any clarification.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: can one add a "packagegroup" simply by adding the recipe file for it?

[Chris Larson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4087 bytes --]

On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>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_<some group that can be listed in IMAGE_FEATURES> = "<a list
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.
-- 
Christopher Larson
clarson at kergoth dot com
Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus
Maintainer - Tslib
Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7138 bytes --]

Re: can one add a "packagegroup" simply by adding the recipe file for it?

[Paul Eggleton]

On Saturday 12 October 2013 07:46:02 Chris Larson wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Robert P. J. Day
> <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>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_<some group that can be listed in IMAGE_FEATURES> = "<a list
> 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

Re: can one add a "packagegroup" simply by adding the recipe file for it?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013, Paul Eggleton wrote:

> On Saturday 12 October 2013 07:46:02 Chris Larson wrote:

> > PACKAGE_GROUP_<some group that can be listed in IMAGE_FEATURES> =
> > "<a list 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.

  ah, that's a delightfully simple way to explain it, thanks, but
there are a few niggling details i want to clear up.

  first, this clearly requires all of the recipe files to be parsed
first, just so you know the list of possible binary packages and in
what recipe file they're defined. (that seems trivially obvious, but
i'm going to say it, anyway.)

  also, while there's an obvious visual pattern in core-image.bbclass
when defining some package groups such as:

PACKAGE_GROUP_x11 = "packagegroup-core-x11"
PACKAGE_GROUP_x11-base = "packagegroup-core-x11-base"
PACKAGE_GROUP_x11-sato = "packagegroup-core-x11-sato"

there's nothing magic about matching those names, is there? and
nothing magic about those packagegroup recipe files all starting with
the prefix "packagegroup-..." in the directory
oe-core/meta/recipes-core/packagegroups/, is there? if i wanted, could
i just as easily define something like:

PACKAGE_GROUP_fred = "barney"

where the binary package "barney" is defined in the recipe file
"wilma.bb"? silly, i know, but valid?

> > 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.

  i've seen the boilerplate in several files for backward
compatibility:

# For backwards compatibility after rename
RPROVIDES_${PN} = "task-core-boot"
RREPLACES_${PN} = "task-core-boot"
RCONFLICTS_${PN} = "task-core-boot"

at some point, after suitable warning, i'd just toss all of that once
no one seems to be using it anymore.

> 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.

  wait ... which manual? i'm currently working my way through all of
them but i have a long way to go. :-(

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: can one add a "packagegroup" simply by adding the recipe file for it?

[Paul Eggleton]

Hi Robert,

On Monday 14 October 2013 06:21:44 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2013, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > On Saturday 12 October 2013 07:46:02 Chris Larson wrote:
> > > PACKAGE_GROUP_<some group that can be listed in IMAGE_FEATURES> =
> > > "<a list 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.
> 
>   ah, that's a delightfully simple way to explain it, thanks, but
> there are a few niggling details i want to clear up.
> 
>   first, this clearly requires all of the recipe files to be parsed
> first, just so you know the list of possible binary packages and in
> what recipe file they're defined. (that seems trivially obvious, but
> i'm going to say it, anyway.)

Well, at that point you know most of the possible binary packages that
will be produced (actually you know what each recipe claims it will
produce; some of those packages will end up empty and thus not produced
in the absence of ALLOW_EMPTY_packagename = "1"; in the case of
dynamically packaged modules/plugins we may have an idea of the packages
that will be produced via PACKAGES_DYNAMIC but we don't know for sure
until the recipe's do_package actually executes.) This kind of thing applies
to all package references within recipes / configuration; the system only
knows about the packages that have been defined up-front by recipes.
 
>   also, while there's an obvious visual pattern in core-image.bbclass
> when defining some package groups such as:
> 
> PACKAGE_GROUP_x11 = "packagegroup-core-x11"
> PACKAGE_GROUP_x11-base = "packagegroup-core-x11-base"
> PACKAGE_GROUP_x11-sato = "packagegroup-core-x11-sato"
> 
> there's nothing magic about matching those names, is there? and
> nothing magic about those packagegroup recipe files all starting with
> the prefix "packagegroup-..." in the directory
> oe-core/meta/recipes-core/packagegroups/, is there? if i wanted, could
> i just as easily define something like:
> 
> PACKAGE_GROUP_fred = "barney"
> 
> where the binary package "barney" is defined in the recipe file
> "wilma.bb"? silly, i know, but valid?

Yep, nothing magic about the names at all. In fact we do this in a few places
e.g. from image.bbclass:

SPLASH ?= "psplash"
PACKAGE_GROUP_splash = "${SPLASH}"

> # For backwards compatibility after rename
> RPROVIDES_${PN} = "task-core-boot"
> RREPLACES_${PN} = "task-core-boot"
> RCONFLICTS_${PN} = "task-core-boot"
> 
> at some point, after suitable warning, i'd just toss all of that once
> no one seems to be using it anymore.

Richard has expressed a desire to have these removed in future, I'm not
sure when that will happen though.

> > 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.
> 
>   wait ... which manual? i'm currently working my way through all of
> them but i have a long way to go. :-(

The 1.5 reference manual.

http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/1.5/ref-manual/ref-manual.html#var-PACKAGE_GROUP

(You won't find this in "current" until 1.5 gets released.)

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre