Re: Core image recipes

[Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>]

On Friday 26 August 2011 17:39:09 Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Friday 26 August 2011 17:18:15 Saul Wold wrote:
> > On 08/26/2011 02:47 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > > meta/recipes-extended/images/core-image-basic.bb
> > 
> > This image should NOT contain any X11, this is supposed to be an
> > extention of core-image-minimal with many of the busybox related
> > commands substituted for the real command set.  The intention of this
> > image is two fold, first it's the largest image that we test against
> > non-GPLv3 and it's the non-graphical LSB image (I am not sure if there
> > is a spec test defined for that.
> 
> Hmm, I'm not sure what I was thinking earlier, you're right it doesn't
> appear to have X. 

Now I know why I thought this. Because task-core.bb defines task packages that 
depend on X applications, any recipe that inherits from core-image will force 
a build of all of the X apps even if it doesn't intend to use them - so both 
core-image-basic and core-image-base suffer from this.  This is not really very 
good and I think we ought to be splitting up task-core to avoid this. FYI 
whilst core-image-minimal inherits from core-image it overrides IMAGE_INSTALL 
and thus doesn't use anything from task-core and therefore does not have this 
issue.

> I can't access the LSB specs website right now
> unfortunately but does this have an official name within LSB? It's not
> "LSB-Core" is it?

Yep, it's LSB-Core (yet another meaning of "core", sigh...)
 
> > > Then, we have core-image-base, which whilst it doesn't remove package
> > > management files, does not have "package-management" in its features,
> > > so it's not a whole lot different to core-image-minimal AFAICT.
> > 
> > On this one I might agree, I know that we have not built that image, nor
> > does it seem to be used by anything else.
> 
> If there's demand for a minimal image with package management (someone
> asked for this on IRC just the other day, and it makes sense to me at
> least) then that's what I'd suggest turning this into. In which case it
> ought to be called core-image-minimal-pkgmgmt or something similar.

Any opinions on this one?

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre