From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [72.14.220.156] (helo=fg-out-1718.google.com) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J3puv-0008W1-3u for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:36:13 +0100 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 22so142438fge.20 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:31:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.86.81.8 with SMTP id e8mr5126034fgb.32.1197797491173; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:31:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.20.166? ( [194.79.8.34]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 31sm15423561fkt.2007.12.16.01.31.29 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:31:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:36:50 +0200 From: Paul Sokolovsky X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.64.01 Christmas Edition) Professional X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1518712155.20071216113650@gmail.com> To: Rod Whitby In-Reply-To: <4764AEE7.5040908@whitby.id.au> References: <164348748.20071215043923@gmail.com> <1515905492.20071215173513@gmail.com> <4764AEE7.5040908@whitby.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [RFC] ANGSTROM_MODE -> SYSTYPE X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:36:13 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Rod, Sunday, December 16, 2007, 6:51:51 AM, you wrote: > Paul Sokolovsky wrote: >> Well, SYSTYPE has another aim and idea in its introduction. I hinted >> about that in original mail, now let me make it explicit: the proposal >> is about introduction of the standard OE variable name for distro >> parameter tweaking. Its meaning however completely depends on the >> distro. Some distro needs switch libc's. Some needs to switch WMs. >> Others need to switch many other things, possibly, in combinations. >> Very good. OE recommends a standard general syntax for that - a >> SYSTYPE. Exact format of what goes into SYSTYPE and its semantics is >> up to distro (and users will know about all that by reading distro's >> docs). (Now that we talk about validation, it puts additional >> syntactic constraints on SYSTYPE value, that's why I'm personally not >> keen to start with [rigid] validation from the beginning). > How is this different to the USE flags proposals that have come and gone > in the past? At least in naming. Because whenever word "USE" appears in discussion, someone comes to explain hardnesses of QAing a system, packages of which are being built using different compile-time settings. At the same time, OE already uses generalized USE conception a lot: DISTRO_FEATURES, MACHINE_FEATURES - are all those generalized USE flags, just working not on the package configuration level (like some other systems allow, and we don't want), but on distro configuration level. But DISTRO_FEATURES & MACHINE_FEATURES are "blackbox" parameters, intended for developers. You can't drop "wifi" from Angstrom's DISTRO_FEATURES and still call/think that it is Angstrom. On the other hand, SYSTYPE is intended as a whitebox parameter, together with the other 2 - DISTRO & MACHINE providing the well-known and complete set of knobs allowing *user* to build a legitimate distro image adjusted to user's need, and within the bounds allowed by a distro. > -- Rod -- Best regards, Paul mailto:pmiscml@gmail.com