Re: The role of "distro" and "image"

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 12:23 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> I'm trying to wrap up my work on meta-tiny and integrate it into poky
> proper. I'm having some difficulty drawing a line between the
> responsibility of the distro definition versus that of the image definition.
> 
> For example, if I define a distro which uses tmpdevfs (no udev or mdev)
> and specifies KMACHINE=yocto/standard/tiny to build the tiny variant of
> the linux-yocto kernel, and customizes the busybox build to leave out
> various things - would it make sense for someone to then try to build
> core-image-sato with it? It doesn't to me, but nothing prevents the user
> from doing that (other than a likely build failure).
> 
> So what does the distro define and what does the image define?

I think Joshua's response is in line with what I'm thinking. Distro is
where all the policy is specified. The image is just a list of pieces of
software to include, its not meant to be much more than that.

> Digging around in conf/distro for meta and meta-yocto, I see things like
> naming convention, additional dependencies, choice of toolchain and
> libc, source mirrors, default virtual providers, etc.

Right, all of this is "policy" at some level or another.

> The image seems to basically define the package list for the image as
> well as the format of the rootfs and boot media.

The latter is often machine specific. There are some images which
specify those things but they're a minority.

> If I understand this correctly, a new "tiny" distro definition would
> change the preferred linux-yocto provider to a linux-yocto-tiny recipe
> (which would in turn specify the default KMACHINE/KTYPE as well, the
> TCLIBC, DISTRO_FEATURES_LIBC, and some naming rules.

Yes, you'd inherit something for the base config and then customise it.

> I currently define a new task-core-tiny.bb to reset some
> MACHINE_ESSENTIAL bits (qemu pulls in more than is necessary for tiny)
> and redefine the REDEPENDS for the image. I believe I could do this
> instead with assignments in the new distro definition and reuse
> task-core-boot.bb.

The latter reuse of task-core-boot would be ideal. If that can't work
I'd be interested to see why and if we couldn't enhance it so it could
work.

> As for images, I might be able to reuse core-image-minimal - but it
> oddly contains "${POKY_EXTRA_INSTALL}" in the IMAGE_INSTALL. Since
> core-image-minimal.bb is defined in oe-core and POKY is a distro notion
> of meta-yocto, this contributes to my confusion over distro vs. image.

This is a bug and there are some patches out there to turn it into
COREIMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL. Its a feature of the core-image.bbclass
(formerly poky.bbclass, hence the name confusion).

Not all images can be built with a given distro, our base config is
rather ride ranging though for obvious reasons. You could "enforce" this
by adding some anonymous python to the distro which does something like:

if inherits("image") and PN != core-image-minimal:
    raise SkipPackage("Image PN not compatible with DISTRO=XXX")

Cheers,

Richard