Patchwork [1/1] default-distrovars.inc, task-core-boot.bb: Create distro overridable varibales

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Khem Raj
Date May 17, 2011, 8:57 p.m.
Message ID <cc2e6337ae338737455bf63bd43278dee302fb5c.1305665459.git.raj.khem@gmail.com>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/4267/
State New, archived
Headers show

Comments

Khem Raj - May 17, 2011, 8:57 p.m.
With default-setup being pulled in via bitbake.conf and task-core-boot
being pulled into all images in distros, we need
to have some variables that distro's can override if need be
This is a backport from angstrom/OE. It will help distros which
e.g. would like to use busybox-mdev instead of udev and similarly
for login manager these variables can be defined in distro policies

Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
---
 meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc |   13 +++++++++++++
 meta/recipes-core/tasks/task-core-boot.bb       |    8 ++++----
 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Koen Kooi - May 17, 2011, 9:03 p.m.
Op 17 mei 2011, om 22:57 heeft Khem Raj het volgende geschreven:

> With default-setup being pulled in via bitbake.conf and task-core-boot
> being pulled into all images in distros, we need
> to have some variables that distro's can override if need be
> This is a backport from angstrom/OE. It will help distros which
> e.g. would like to use busybox-mdev instead of udev and similarly
> for login manager these variables can be defined in distro policies

The whole idea of IMAGE vars is that they can be overridden by image recipes. Putting the vars in a tasks defeats that.

regards,

Koen



> 
> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
> ---
> meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc |   13 +++++++++++++
> meta/recipes-core/tasks/task-core-boot.bb       |    8 ++++----
> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc b/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
> index 9b1d0ee..3b78d66 100644
> --- a/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
> +++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
> @@ -6,6 +6,19 @@ OEINCLUDELOGS ?= "yes"
> KERNEL_CONSOLE ?= "ttyS0"
> 
> PCMCIA_MANAGER ?= "pcmciautils"
> +#
> +# udev, devfsd, busybox-mdev (from busybox) or none
> +#
> +IMAGE_DEV_MANAGER ?= "udev"
> +#
> +# sysvinit, upstart
> +#
> +IMAGE_INIT_MANAGER ?= "sysvinit"
> +IMAGE_INITSCRIPTS ?= "initscripts"
> +#
> +# tinylogin, getty
> +#
> +IMAGE_LOGIN_MANAGER ?= "tinylogin"
> 
> IMAGE_LINGUAS ?= "en-us en-gb"
> LIMIT_BUILT_LOCALES ?= "POSIX en_US en_GB"
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/tasks/task-core-boot.bb b/meta/recipes-core/tasks/task-core-boot.bb
> index 5aea771..af2c2ee 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-core/tasks/task-core-boot.bb
> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/tasks/task-core-boot.bb
> @@ -21,13 +21,13 @@ RDEPENDS_task-core-boot = "\
>     base-files \
>     base-passwd \
>     busybox \
> -    initscripts \
> +    ${IMAGE_INITSCRIPTS} \
>     ${@base_contains("MACHINE_FEATURES", "keyboard", "keymaps", "", d)} \
>     modutils-initscripts \
>     netbase \
> -    sysvinit \
> -    tinylogin \
> -    udev \
> +    ${IMAGE_INIT_MANAGER} \
> +    ${IMAGE_LOGIN_MANAGER} \
> +    ${IMAGE_DEV_MANAGER} \
>     ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_update-alternatives} \
>     ${MACHINE_ESSENTIAL_EXTRA_RDEPENDS}"
> 
> -- 
> 1.7.4.1
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Khem Raj - May 17, 2011, 9:48 p.m.
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>
> Op 17 mei 2011, om 22:57 heeft Khem Raj het volgende geschreven:
>
>> With default-setup being pulled in via bitbake.conf and task-core-boot
>> being pulled into all images in distros, we need
>> to have some variables that distro's can override if need be
>> This is a backport from angstrom/OE. It will help distros which
>> e.g. would like to use busybox-mdev instead of udev and similarly
>> for login manager these variables can be defined in distro policies
>
> The whole idea of IMAGE vars is that they can be overridden by image recipes. Putting the vars in a tasks defeats that.

I see that. OK so we can define a variable like IMAGE_BOOT with some defaults
in image.bbclass which collects these variables and remove these packages from

I will post a patch for that
>
> regards,
>
> Koen
>
>
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc |   13 +++++++++++++
>> meta/recipes-core/tasks/task-core-boot.bb       |    8 ++++----
>> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc b/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
>> index 9b1d0ee..3b78d66 100644
>> --- a/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
>> +++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
>> @@ -6,6 +6,19 @@ OEINCLUDELOGS ?= "yes"
>> KERNEL_CONSOLE ?= "ttyS0"
>>
>> PCMCIA_MANAGER ?= "pcmciautils"
>> +#
>> +# udev, devfsd, busybox-mdev (from busybox) or none
>> +#
>> +IMAGE_DEV_MANAGER ?= "udev"
>> +#
>> +# sysvinit, upstart
>> +#
>> +IMAGE_INIT_MANAGER ?= "sysvinit"
>> +IMAGE_INITSCRIPTS ?= "initscripts"
>> +#
>> +# tinylogin, getty
>> +#
>> +IMAGE_LOGIN_MANAGER ?= "tinylogin"
>>
>> IMAGE_LINGUAS ?= "en-us en-gb"
>> LIMIT_BUILT_LOCALES ?= "POSIX en_US en_GB"
>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/tasks/task-core-boot.bb b/meta/recipes-core/tasks/task-core-boot.bb
>> index 5aea771..af2c2ee 100644
>> --- a/meta/recipes-core/tasks/task-core-boot.bb
>> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/tasks/task-core-boot.bb
>> @@ -21,13 +21,13 @@ RDEPENDS_task-core-boot = "\
>>     base-files \
>>     base-passwd \
>>     busybox \
>> -    initscripts \
>> +    ${IMAGE_INITSCRIPTS} \
>>     ${@base_contains("MACHINE_FEATURES", "keyboard", "keymaps", "", d)} \
>>     modutils-initscripts \
>>     netbase \
>> -    sysvinit \
>> -    tinylogin \
>> -    udev \
>> +    ${IMAGE_INIT_MANAGER} \
>> +    ${IMAGE_LOGIN_MANAGER} \
>> +    ${IMAGE_DEV_MANAGER} \
>>     ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_update-alternatives} \
>>     ${MACHINE_ESSENTIAL_EXTRA_RDEPENDS}"
>>
>> --
>> 1.7.4.1
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
Phil Blundell - May 18, 2011, 3:53 p.m.
On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 13:57 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> With default-setup being pulled in via bitbake.conf and task-core-boot
> being pulled into all images in distros, we need
> to have some variables that distro's can override if need be
> This is a backport from angstrom/OE. It will help distros which
> e.g. would like to use busybox-mdev instead of udev and similarly
> for login manager these variables can be defined in distro policies

I'm not massively convinced that this proliferation of extra switches is
a very good thing.  With each DISTRO now having its own layer, it's
quite straightforward for it to provide its own customised rootfs
recipes which contain exactly the set of packages that it wants.  Trying
to create a sort of "generic" rootfs recipe in which every other
dependency can be tweaked by some obscure variable doesn't seem like an
especially productive way to proceed.

Also, any new variable which is added to default-distrovars.inc will be
included in the parsed metadata for everything and, although the
marginal cost (in memory/performance terms) of adding one extra global
variable is not that great, it's not zero either.  Perhaps more
significantly, there is also a cost in terms of metadata
comprehensibility: one of the common complaints about "classic oe" was
that it was difficult to get your head around the myriad little
variables that you could tweak in some or other configuration file.

So, all in all, I think we should try to keep a lid on the amount of
stuff that goes into default-distrovars and its friends.  If the idea of
a sort of templated rootfs image really seems like a valuable one then
maybe we could put those vars in a dedicated config file which is only
included by the rootfs recipes.

p.
Khem Raj - May 18, 2011, 4:40 p.m.
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Phil Blundell <pb@pbcl.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 13:57 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> With default-setup being pulled in via bitbake.conf and task-core-boot
>> being pulled into all images in distros, we need
>> to have some variables that distro's can override if need be
>> This is a backport from angstrom/OE. It will help distros which
>> e.g. would like to use busybox-mdev instead of udev and similarly
>> for login manager these variables can be defined in distro policies
>
> I'm not massively convinced that this proliferation of extra switches is
> a very good thing.  With each DISTRO now having its own layer, it's
> quite straightforward for it to provide its own customised rootfs
> recipes which contain exactly the set of packages that it wants.  Trying
> to create a sort of "generic" rootfs recipe in which every other
> dependency can be tweaked by some obscure variable doesn't seem like an
> especially productive way to proceed.
>

Problem I have is, I dont want udev in RDEPENDS which is added by
task-core-boot
and task-core-boot is added to DISTRO_EXTRA_RDEPENDS through
default-distrovars.inc -> defaultsetup.conf -> bitbake.conf

and my distro adds DISTRO_EXTRA_RDEPENDS to its RDEPENDS
as I think the variable is meant for distro's to define some extra
stuff if needed.

How should I solve this problem ?


> Also, any new variable which is added to default-distrovars.inc will be
> included in the parsed metadata for everything and, although the
> marginal cost (in memory/performance terms) of adding one extra global
> variable is not that great, it's not zero either.  Perhaps more
> significantly, there is also a cost in terms of metadata
> comprehensibility: one of the common complaints about "classic oe" was
> that it was difficult to get your head around the myriad little
> variables that you could tweak in some or other configuration file.
>
> So, all in all, I think we should try to keep a lid on the amount of
> stuff that goes into default-distrovars and its friends.  If the idea of
> a sort of templated rootfs image really seems like a valuable one then
> maybe we could put those vars in a dedicated config file which is only
> included by the rootfs recipes.
>
> p.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
Phil Blundell - May 18, 2011, 5:08 p.m.
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 09:40 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> Problem I have is, I dont want udev in RDEPENDS which is added by
> task-core-boot
> and task-core-boot is added to DISTRO_EXTRA_RDEPENDS through
> default-distrovars.inc -> defaultsetup.conf -> bitbake.conf
> 
> and my distro adds DISTRO_EXTRA_RDEPENDS to its RDEPENDS
> as I think the variable is meant for distro's to define some extra
> stuff if needed.
> 
> How should I solve this problem ?

Well, what I did in micro-base-image was simply to not use
task-core-boot at all.  But in your case I was thinking that you could
overlay that recipe with from your distro's layer and make it do
whatever you wanted.

p.
Koen Kooi - May 18, 2011, 5:29 p.m.
Op 18 mei 2011, om 19:08 heeft Phil Blundell het volgende geschreven:

> On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 09:40 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> Problem I have is, I dont want udev in RDEPENDS which is added by
>> task-core-boot
>> and task-core-boot is added to DISTRO_EXTRA_RDEPENDS through
>> default-distrovars.inc -> defaultsetup.conf -> bitbake.conf
>> 
>> and my distro adds DISTRO_EXTRA_RDEPENDS to its RDEPENDS
>> as I think the variable is meant for distro's to define some extra
>> stuff if needed.
>> 
>> How should I solve this problem ?
> 
> Well, what I did in micro-base-image was simply to not use
> task-core-boot at all.  But in your case I was thinking that you could
> overlay that recipe with from your distro's layer and make it do
> whatever you wanted.

The fact that we have layers does not mean we need to follow the silo mentality you seem to prefer. If task-base in oe-core stops being usefull we should fix it, now play around in our own little sandboxes.
Leon Woestenberg - May 18, 2011, 5:52 p.m.
Hello,

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>
> Op 18 mei 2011, om 19:08 heeft Phil Blundell het volgende geschreven:
>
>> On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 09:40 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> Problem I have is, I dont want udev in RDEPENDS which is added by
>>> task-core-boot
>>> and task-core-boot is added to DISTRO_EXTRA_RDEPENDS through
>>> default-distrovars.inc -> defaultsetup.conf -> bitbake.conf
>>>
>>> and my distro adds DISTRO_EXTRA_RDEPENDS to its RDEPENDS
>>> as I think the variable is meant for distro's to define some extra
>>> stuff if needed.
>>>
>>> How should I solve this problem ?
>>
>> Well, what I did in micro-base-image was simply to not use
>> task-core-boot at all.  But in your case I was thinking that you could
>> overlay that recipe with from your distro's layer and make it do
>> whatever you wanted.
>
> The fact that we have layers does not mean we need to follow the silo mentality you seem to prefer. If task-base in oe-core stops being usefull we should fix it, now play around in our own little sandboxes.
>
If task-base is getting less useful, removing it altogether (I found
the  reasons mentioned by Phil convincing)  should be at least
considered as an alternative.

I am not sure why we should keep task-base as something generic --all
distro's have their own specific requirements and configurations, even
for task-base, so why not move this functionality into the distro and
out of oe-core?

I never quite saw what task-base gained us on a netto basis, but I
think I am biased towards small tweaked images, so these are just my
two cents.

Regards,
Khem Raj - May 18, 2011, 6:07 p.m.
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Leon Woestenberg
<leon.woestenberg@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>>
>> Op 18 mei 2011, om 19:08 heeft Phil Blundell het volgende geschreven:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 09:40 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>> Problem I have is, I dont want udev in RDEPENDS which is added by
>>>> task-core-boot
>>>> and task-core-boot is added to DISTRO_EXTRA_RDEPENDS through
>>>> default-distrovars.inc -> defaultsetup.conf -> bitbake.conf
>>>>
>>>> and my distro adds DISTRO_EXTRA_RDEPENDS to its RDEPENDS
>>>> as I think the variable is meant for distro's to define some extra
>>>> stuff if needed.
>>>>
>>>> How should I solve this problem ?
>>>
>>> Well, what I did in micro-base-image was simply to not use
>>> task-core-boot at all.  But in your case I was thinking that you could
>>> overlay that recipe with from your distro's layer and make it do
>>> whatever you wanted.
>>
>> The fact that we have layers does not mean we need to follow the silo mentality you seem to prefer. If task-base in oe-core stops being usefull we should fix it, now play around in our own little sandboxes.
>>
> If task-base is getting less useful, removing it altogether (I found
> the  reasons mentioned by Phil convincing)  should be at least
> considered as an alternative.
>
> I am not sure why we should keep task-base as something generic --all
> distro's have their own specific requirements and configurations, even
> for task-base, so why not move this functionality into the distro and
> out of oe-core?
>
> I never quite saw what task-base gained us on a netto basis, but I
> think I am biased towards small tweaked images, so these are just my
> two cents.
>

there are certain common parts that can be abstracted
and can be maintained in oe-core so everyone benefits
from it and certain image specific parts can be done in
distros. So keeping common parts in core would still
be better IMO

> Regards,
> --
> Leon
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
Koen Kooi - May 18, 2011, 6:15 p.m.
Op 18 mei 2011, om 20:07 heeft Khem Raj het volgende geschreven:

> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Leon Woestenberg
> <leon.woestenberg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Op 18 mei 2011, om 19:08 heeft Phil Blundell het volgende geschreven:
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 09:40 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>> Problem I have is, I dont want udev in RDEPENDS which is added by
>>>>> task-core-boot
>>>>> and task-core-boot is added to DISTRO_EXTRA_RDEPENDS through
>>>>> default-distrovars.inc -> defaultsetup.conf -> bitbake.conf
>>>>> 
>>>>> and my distro adds DISTRO_EXTRA_RDEPENDS to its RDEPENDS
>>>>> as I think the variable is meant for distro's to define some extra
>>>>> stuff if needed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> How should I solve this problem ?
>>>> 
>>>> Well, what I did in micro-base-image was simply to not use
>>>> task-core-boot at all.  But in your case I was thinking that you could
>>>> overlay that recipe with from your distro's layer and make it do
>>>> whatever you wanted.
>>> 
>>> The fact that we have layers does not mean we need to follow the silo mentality you seem to prefer. If task-base in oe-core stops being usefull we should fix it, now play around in our own little sandboxes.
>>> 
>> If task-base is getting less useful, removing it altogether (I found
>> the  reasons mentioned by Phil convincing)  should be at least
>> considered as an alternative.
>> 
>> I am not sure why we should keep task-base as something generic --all
>> distro's have their own specific requirements and configurations, even
>> for task-base, so why not move this functionality into the distro and
>> out of oe-core?
>> 
>> I never quite saw what task-base gained us on a netto basis, but I
>> think I am biased towards small tweaked images, so these are just my
>> two cents.
>> 
> 
> there are certain common parts that can be abstracted
> and can be maintained in oe-core so everyone benefits
> from it and certain image specific parts can be done in
> distros. So keeping common parts in core would still
> be better IMO

And in OE .dev we split task-boot from task-base to be able to get the benefits from task base without forcing task-boot. OE-core had the same till it got forcefully added to the extra depends last week.

regards,

Koen
Martin Jansa - May 18, 2011, 7:22 p.m.
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 07:52:50PM +0200, Leon Woestenberg wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
> >
> > Op 18 mei 2011, om 19:08 heeft Phil Blundell het volgende geschreven:
> >
> >> On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 09:40 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> >>> Problem I have is, I dont want udev in RDEPENDS which is added by
> >>> task-core-boot
> >>> and task-core-boot is added to DISTRO_EXTRA_RDEPENDS through
> >>> default-distrovars.inc -> defaultsetup.conf -> bitbake.conf
> >>>
> >>> and my distro adds DISTRO_EXTRA_RDEPENDS to its RDEPENDS
> >>> as I think the variable is meant for distro's to define some extra
> >>> stuff if needed.
> >>>
> >>> How should I solve this problem ?
> >>
> >> Well, what I did in micro-base-image was simply to not use
> >> task-core-boot at all.  But in your case I was thinking that you could
> >> overlay that recipe with from your distro's layer and make it do
> >> whatever you wanted.
> >
> > The fact that we have layers does not mean we need to follow the silo mentality you seem to prefer. If task-base in oe-core stops being usefull we should fix it, now play around in our own little sandboxes.

FWIW: I also prefer to have "default" task-base, task-boot with sane
default settings in oe-core and every distro can reuse it as it is, or
customize with few global variables or replace with something completely
different if really needed (so I agree that it shouldn't be
unconditionaly added to DISTRO_EXTRA_RDEPENDS). Maybe we can introduce
VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_task-base ?= "task-base"
VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_task-boot ?= "task-core-boot"
and in default-distrovars.inc
DISTRO_EXTRA_RDEPENDS += "${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_task-boot}"

like we have ie for VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_apm,
VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_update-alternatives to keep variable namespace clean.

The same namespace for initscripts/login_manager/dev_manager and every 
image recipe can use different values than what's default for distro.

But reinventing similar task-base/task-boot combo in every meta-distro
layer seems strange to me.

Regards,

> If task-base is getting less useful, removing it altogether (I found
> the  reasons mentioned by Phil convincing)  should be at least
> considered as an alternative.
> 
> I am not sure why we should keep task-base as something generic --all
> distro's have their own specific requirements and configurations, even
> for task-base, so why not move this functionality into the distro and
> out of oe-core?
> 
> I never quite saw what task-base gained us on a netto basis, but I
> think I am biased towards small tweaked images, so these are just my
> two cents.
> 
> Regards,
> -- 
> Leon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Phil Blundell - May 18, 2011, 8:12 p.m.
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 11:07 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> there are certain common parts that can be abstracted
> and can be maintained in oe-core so everyone benefits
> from it and certain image specific parts can be done in
> distros. So keeping common parts in core would still
> be better IMO

Which are the common parts you're thinking of?  I'm not sure there's
anything in task-core-boot which all distros are guaranteed to want.  If
we're basically going to end up with a recipe which is just a list of
distro-defined variable substitutions then it seems to me that a more
readable way to achieve the same end is just to have the distro provide
the recipe in the first place.

p.
Khem Raj - May 18, 2011, 8:16 p.m.
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Phil Blundell <pb@pbcl.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 11:07 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> there are certain common parts that can be abstracted
>> and can be maintained in oe-core so everyone benefits
>> from it and certain image specific parts can be done in
>> distros. So keeping common parts in core would still
>> be better IMO
>
> Which are the common parts you're thinking of?  I'm not sure there's
> anything in task-core-boot which all distros are guaranteed to want.  If
> we're basically going to end up with a recipe which is just a list of
> distro-defined variable substitutions then it seems to me that a more
> readable way to achieve the same end is just to have the distro provide
> the recipe in the first place.
>

I was commenting in general on tasks and not specific to  task-core-boot

> p.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
Richard Purdie - May 19, 2011, 12:47 a.m.
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 20:15 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 18 mei 2011, om 20:07 heeft Khem Raj het volgende geschreven:
> > there are certain common parts that can be abstracted
> > and can be maintained in oe-core so everyone benefits
> > from it and certain image specific parts can be done in
> > distros. So keeping common parts in core would still
> > be better IMO
> 
> And in OE .dev we split task-boot from task-base to be able to get the
> benefits from task base without forcing task-boot. OE-core had the
> same till it got forcefully added to the extra depends last week.

Which was a genuine mistake and I need to merge the patch that is around
to address that particular issue.

Cheers,

Richard
Khem Raj - May 19, 2011, 2:22 a.m.
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 20:15 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Op 18 mei 2011, om 20:07 heeft Khem Raj het volgende geschreven:
>> > there are certain common parts that can be abstracted
>> > and can be maintained in oe-core so everyone benefits
>> > from it and certain image specific parts can be done in
>> > distros. So keeping common parts in core would still
>> > be better IMO
>>
>> And in OE .dev we split task-boot from task-base to be able to get the
>> benefits from task base without forcing task-boot. OE-core had the
>> same till it got forcefully added to the extra depends last week.
>
> Which was a genuine mistake and I need to merge the patch that is around
> to address that particular issue.
>

http://patches.openembedded.org/patch/4387/

> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>

Patch

diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc b/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
index 9b1d0ee..3b78d66 100644
--- a/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
+++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
@@ -6,6 +6,19 @@  OEINCLUDELOGS ?= "yes"
 KERNEL_CONSOLE ?= "ttyS0"
 
 PCMCIA_MANAGER ?= "pcmciautils"
+#
+# udev, devfsd, busybox-mdev (from busybox) or none
+#
+IMAGE_DEV_MANAGER ?= "udev"
+#
+# sysvinit, upstart
+#
+IMAGE_INIT_MANAGER ?= "sysvinit"
+IMAGE_INITSCRIPTS ?= "initscripts"
+#
+# tinylogin, getty
+#
+IMAGE_LOGIN_MANAGER ?= "tinylogin"
 
 IMAGE_LINGUAS ?= "en-us en-gb"
 LIMIT_BUILT_LOCALES ?= "POSIX en_US en_GB"
diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/tasks/task-core-boot.bb b/meta/recipes-core/tasks/task-core-boot.bb
index 5aea771..af2c2ee 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-core/tasks/task-core-boot.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/tasks/task-core-boot.bb
@@ -21,13 +21,13 @@  RDEPENDS_task-core-boot = "\
     base-files \
     base-passwd \
     busybox \
-    initscripts \
+    ${IMAGE_INITSCRIPTS} \
     ${@base_contains("MACHINE_FEATURES", "keyboard", "keymaps", "", d)} \
     modutils-initscripts \
     netbase \
-    sysvinit \
-    tinylogin \
-    udev \
+    ${IMAGE_INIT_MANAGER} \
+    ${IMAGE_LOGIN_MANAGER} \
+    ${IMAGE_DEV_MANAGER} \
     ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_update-alternatives} \
     ${MACHINE_ESSENTIAL_EXTRA_RDEPENDS}"