Populating meta-oe with new patches on oe.dev

Populating meta-oe with new patches on oe.dev

[Khem Raj]

Hello

As we all know that next release of OpenEmbedded is slated based on
oe-core, I would like to request submitters and committers of
the patches for oe.dev to port the patches to meta-oe or any other
layer that is suitable for a given patch. Any new recipes
being added to oe.dev should definitely go into the new layered structure

Please follow the commit guidelines for meta-oe/oe-core and submit the
appropriate pull requests so that when we cut out the next release we
don't miss any of those patches.

Thanks for your cooperation and help

-Khem

Re: [oe] Populating meta-oe with new patches on oe.dev

[Russell Morris]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1546 bytes --]

Hi,

 

My apologies for the dumb question, but I admit that I don't know the answer, so ...

 

Can someone explain the differences between oe-core and OpenEmbedded, and in particular the various git repositories? I ask because I'm struggling to get OE running on my h1940 (using openembedded), but I have a feeling that this may be the wrong repository to use ... but I just don't know ... :-(. I'm also not sure which ones are being worked on going forward (as I would like to submit changes once I get things working, but again don't know which repository is the right one).

 

Thanks in advance for your help!

 

... Russell

 



On Fri, 07/15/2011 04:42 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:


> 
Hello
> 
> As we all know that next release of OpenEmbedded is slated based on
> oe-core, I would like to request submitters and committers of
> the patches for oe.dev to port the patches to meta-oe or any other
> layer that is suitable for a given patch. Any new recipes
> being added to oe.dev should definitely go into the new layered structure
> 
> Please follow the commit guidelines for meta-oe/oe-core and submit the
> appropriate pull requests so that when we cut out the next release we
> don't miss any of those patches.
> 
> Thanks for your cooperation and help
> 
> -Khem
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2403 bytes --]

Re: Populating meta-oe with new patches on oe.dev

[Russell Morris]

Hi,

 

My apologies for the dumb question, but I admit that I don't know the answer, so ...

 

Can someone explain the differences between oe-core and OpenEmbedded, and in particular the various git repositories? I ask because I'm struggling to get OE running on my h1940 (using openembedded), but I have a feeling that this may be the wrong repository to use ... but I just don't know ... :-(. I'm also not sure which ones are being worked on going forward (as I would like to submit changes once I get things working, but again don't know which repository is the right one).

 

Thanks in advance for your help!

 

... Russell

 



On Fri, 07/15/2011 04:42 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:


> 
Hello
> 
> As we all know that next release of OpenEmbedded is slated based on
> oe-core, I would like to request submitters and committers of
> the patches for oe.dev to port the patches to meta-oe or any other
> layer that is suitable for a given patch. Any new recipes
> being added to oe.dev should definitely go into the new layered structure
> 
> Please follow the commit guidelines for meta-oe/oe-core and submit the
> appropriate pull requests so that when we cut out the next release we
> don't miss any of those patches.
> 
> Thanks for your cooperation and help
> 
> -Khem
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>
From openembedded@rkmorris.us Sat Jul 16 16:30:15 2011
Received: from vms173005pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.5])
	by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <openembedded@rkmorris.us>)
	id 1Qi5sl-0004mB-6b; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 16:30:15 +0200
Received: from server ([unknown] [173.74.34.213]) by vms173005.mailsrvcs.net
	(Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16
	2009))
	with ESMTPA id <0LOF0050PHAVWSA0@vms173005.mailsrvcs.net>; Sat,
	16 Jul 2011 08:25:45 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from server (127.0.0.1) by server (Axigen)
	with ESMTPSA id 16FE58; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 08:25:40 -0500
Received: from [192.168.1.13] by rkmorris.us with HTTP; Sat,
	16 Jul 2011 08:25:38 -0500
From: Russell Morris <openembedded@rkmorris.us>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 08:25:38 -0500
X-Mailer: Axigen WebMail
To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
Message-id: <1310822738895594500@rkmorris.us>
In-reply-to: <CAMKF1spOJJP

Re: Populating meta-oe with new patches on oe.dev

[Paul Menzel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2165 bytes --]

Dear Khem,


Am Freitag, den 15.07.2011, 14:42 -0700 schrieb Khem Raj:

> As we all know that next release of OpenEmbedded is slated based on
> oe-core, I would like to request submitters and committers of
> the patches for oe.dev to port the patches to meta-oe or any other
> layer that is suitable for a given patch. Any new recipes
> being added to oe.dev should definitely go into the new layered structure

unfortunately as someone not having followed the creation of oe-core and
meta-oe, I fill somewhat lost. Is there a comprehensive document
somewhere as Russell also asked for?

Additionally I have the following observations.

1. Compared to former oe.dev activity looking at meta-oe there are only
a handful of people doing contributions and a lot of recipes are
missing. I have the feeling that a lot of developers where left out in
the process of creating the new infrastructure and I do not know if they
just develop their private branches based on oe.dev or if they use
meta-oe and I have not noticed this.

2. Looking at the weekly changelogs sent to the lists I see a lot of
duplicated commits in each layer. Why is that needed? Is not that a
design problem of the layers?

3. I find the `recipe-*section*/` directories difficult to handle to
finding a recipe. Before I would use `recipe/` and then tab completion
and now I have to search for it. Are others uncomfortable with this?

4. What images are available in/for oe-core/meta-openembedded? I liked
for example `minimal{,-uclibc}`? `find . -name minimal*` in `oe-core` or
`meta-oe` did not give any result. Not to mention the images for
BeagleBoard or `micro-image` for the recently sent patches for payload
creation for coreboot 

> Please follow the commit guidelines for meta-oe/oe-core

… which can be found in the Wiki [1].

> and submit the appropriate pull requests so that when we cut out the
> next release we don't miss any of those patches.

Did anyone wrote any helper scripts for conversion of recipes/commits
from oe.dev to meta-oe?


Thanks,

Paul


[1] http://openembedded.org/index.php/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

Re: Populating meta-oe with new patches on oe.dev

[Paul Eggleton]

On Sunday 17 July 2011 17:12:51 Paul Menzel wrote:
> unfortunately as someone not having followed the creation of oe-core and
> meta-oe, I fill somewhat lost. Is there a comprehensive document
> somewhere as Russell also asked for?

I've just written one here:

 http://www.openembedded.org/index.php/OpenEmbedded-Core

May not be complete but I think it covers most things.
 
> 1. Compared to former oe.dev activity looking at meta-oe there are only
> a handful of people doing contributions and a lot of recipes are
> missing. I have the feeling that a lot of developers where left out in
> the process of creating the new infrastructure and I do not know if they
> just develop their private branches based on oe.dev or if they use
> meta-oe and I have not noticed this.

So, the meta-oe repository consists of meta-oe layer plus a few other more 
clearly defined layers (meta-gnome, meta-efl etc.) The meta-oe layer exists to 
provide a place for recipes that don't necessarily belong in OE-core but are 
required by multiple other metadata layers, so we avoid duplication. I would 
hope that many recipes that are around well-defined themes would be in their 
own layers rather than the meta-oe layer itself (e.g. all EFL recipes go in 
meta-efl). There's definitely work to be done in bringing over recipes to the 
new ecosystem, sure, but that will come in time. Are there specific pieces you 
are missing?

You're right in that there aren't many people contributing to meta-oe (and the 
other layers within the meta-oe repository) at the moment; I think that's 
because most existing developers have been content to stay using OE-dev or 
their own private branches thereof as they have done for a long time. Perhaps 
we could have done a better job of promoting OE-core within the wider OE 
community, but that's probably because we all had our heads down trying to get 
things into shape :) I think we're now reaching the point where people should 
be able to make the switch to OE-core and not hit too many issues, other than 
the lack of some recipes (and the latter is not too difficult to remedy).

> 2. Looking at the weekly changelogs sent to the lists I see a lot of
> duplicated commits in each layer. Why is that needed? Is not that a
> design problem of the layers?

If you mean the duplication between bitbake & oe-core and "meta-yocto" (which 
really isn't just the meta-yocto layer, it's the whole of Poky), that's the 
result of the tool Cliff uses to do the reports which doesn't have a way to 
restrict itself to a subdirectory of a repository. I hope that's something 
Cliff can address at some point in the future.

> 3. I find the `recipe-*section*/` directories difficult to handle to
> finding a recipe. Before I would use `recipe/` and then tab completion
> and now I have to search for it. Are others uncomfortable with this?

I'm used to it now but it did feel a bit strange to begin with. I think 
Richard's idea was to avoid too many levels of directories; he can perhaps 
comment further.
 
> 4. What images are available in/for oe-core/meta-openembedded? I liked
> for example `minimal{,-uclibc}`? `find . -name minimal*` in `oe-core` or
> `meta-oe` did not give any result. Not to mention the images for
> BeagleBoard or `micro-image` for the recently sent patches for payload
> creation for coreboot

OE-core provides a number of images, but the main ones are core-image-minimal 
and core-image-sato. Other layers add their own images as appropriate, e.g. 
meta-angstrom provides systemd-gnome-image.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [oe] Populating meta-oe with new patches on oe.dev

[Paul Eggleton]

On Saturday 16 July 2011 14:25:38 Russell Morris wrote:
> Can someone explain the differences between oe-core and OpenEmbedded, and
> in particular the various git repositories? 

Well, as I just mentioned in my reply to Paul I have produced a document 
describing OE-core here:

 http://www.openembedded.org/index.php/OpenEmbedded-Core

I don't know that it explicitly describes all the repositories but it does 
give some idea of the motivations.

> I ask because I'm struggling to get OE running on my h1940 (using
> openembedded), but I have a feeling that this may be the wrong repository to
> use ... but I just don't know ...

OE-dev provides support for h1940, yes, but I wouldn't expect that to be 
maintained in future. However, read on...

> I'm also not sure which ones are being worked on going forward (as I
> would like to submit changes once I get things working, but again don't
> know which repository is the right one).

So most of the new development should happen either in OE-core or some layer 
on top. Hopefully I will soon be able to release a layer called "meta-
handheld" that I have been working on which will provide machine support for 
h1940 amongst other handheld devices. If you're using OE-dev now that's OK, if 
you have any patches against OE-dev they will be easy to re-apply to meta-
handheld or whereever is appropriate.

Cheers,
Paul


-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: Populating meta-oe with new patches on oe.dev

[Paul Eggleton]

On Saturday 16 July 2011 14:25:38 Russell Morris wrote:
> Can someone explain the differences between oe-core and OpenEmbedded, and
> in particular the various git repositories? 

Well, as I just mentioned in my reply to Paul I have produced a document 
describing OE-core here:

 http://www.openembedded.org/index.php/OpenEmbedded-Core

I don't know that it explicitly describes all the repositories but it does 
give some idea of the motivations.

> I ask because I'm struggling to get OE running on my h1940 (using
> openembedded), but I have a feeling that this may be the wrong repository to
> use ... but I just don't know ...

OE-dev provides support for h1940, yes, but I wouldn't expect that to be 
maintained in future. However, read on...

> I'm also not sure which ones are being worked on going forward (as I
> would like to submit changes once I get things working, but again don't
> know which repository is the right one).

So most of the new development should happen either in OE-core or some layer 
on top. Hopefully I will soon be able to release a layer called "meta-
handheld" that I have been working on which will provide machine support for 
h1940 amongst other handheld devices. If you're using OE-dev now that's OK, if 
you have any patches against OE-dev they will be easy to re-apply to meta-
handheld or whereever is appropriate.

Cheers,
Paul


-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: Populating meta-oe with new patches on oe.dev

[Phil Blundell]

On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 18:11 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Sunday 17 July 2011 17:12:51 Paul Menzel wrote:
> > 3. I find the `recipe-*section*/` directories difficult to handle to
> > finding a recipe. Before I would use `recipe/` and then tab completion
> > and now I have to search for it. Are others uncomfortable with this?
> 
> I'm used to it now but it did feel a bit strange to begin with. 

I've been using oe-core for a while now and I do still find it a bit
annoying when you have to search in multiple directories to try to find
the recipe that you're looking for.  In some cases it's obvious and
there's no problem (eg it's fairly easy to guess that gcc would be in
devtools) but the split between some of the other directories
(particularly -core/-support/-extended/-connectivity and
-graphics/-gnome/-sato) often seems a bit arbitrary.

However, emacs seems to be able to do tab completion across multiple
levels of hierarchy nowadays, so I can just type
"meta/recipes-/net-tools<TAB>" and it automatically figures out that
recipes-extended is the right thing.  So in practice this is not too big
a deal for me most of the time.  And I agree that having a single
massive directory of recipes is not such a great thing either, so the
current arrangement probably is a reasonable compromise.

> > 4. What images are available in/for oe-core/meta-openembedded? I liked
> > for example `minimal{,-uclibc}`? `find . -name minimal*` in `oe-core` or
> > `meta-oe` did not give any result. Not to mention the images for
> > BeagleBoard or `micro-image` for the recently sent patches for payload
> > creation for coreboot

micro-image itself doesn't currently exist for the oe-core world.
However, micro-base-image (which always seemed the more useful one) is
in the meta-micro layer, see:

http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/meta-micro/tree/recipes/images

If you wanted to submit a patch to reinstate micro-image, with a
suitable rationale for why it's useful, then that would be welcome.

p.