From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from arroyo.ext.ti.com (arroyo.ext.ti.com [192.94.94.40]) by arago-project.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55DA452090 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:24:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dflxv15.itg.ti.com ([128.247.5.124]) by arroyo.ext.ti.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id r8QHO8SH029579 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 12:24:08 -0500 Received: from DLEE71.ent.ti.com (dlee71.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.114]) by dflxv15.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r8QHO8XS012514 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 12:24:08 -0500 Received: from dlep33.itg.ti.com (157.170.170.75) by DLEE71.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.114) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.342.3; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 12:24:08 -0500 Received: from localhost (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by dlep33.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r8QHO7mF019421; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 12:24:07 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 13:24:07 -0400 From: Denys Dmytriyenko To: "Cooper Jr., Franklin" Message-ID: <20130926172407.GV14528@edge> References: <8F29D6B095ED194EA1980491A5E029710C553A50@DFLE08.ent.ti.com> <20130920193051.GB30673@edge> <8F29D6B095ED194EA1980491A5E029710C55817B@DFLE08.ent.ti.com> <20130920201855.GD30673@edge> <8F29D6B095ED194EA1980491A5E029710C558370@DFLE08.ent.ti.com> <20130920211425.GF30673@edge> <8F29D6B095ED194EA1980491A5E029710C55A51B@DFLE08.ent.ti.com> <20130923153444.GD3456@edge> <20130924195214.GD5945@edge> <8F29D6B095ED194EA1980491A5E029710C5607D6@DFLE08.ent.ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8F29D6B095ED194EA1980491A5E029710C5607D6@DFLE08.ent.ti.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: "meta-arago@arago-project.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tisdk-rootfs-base-image: Rename base file system image X-BeenThere: meta-arago@arago-project.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Arago metadata layer for TI SDKs - OE-Core/Yocto compatible List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:24:10 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:55:13PM -0400, Cooper Jr., Franklin wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Cooper Jr., Franklin > > Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:10 PM > > To: Dmytriyenko, Denys > > Cc: meta-arago@arago-project.org > > Subject: RE: [meta-arago] [PATCH 1/2] tisdk-rootfs-base-image: Rename base > > file system image > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Dmytriyenko, Denys > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 2:52 PM > > > To: Cooper Jr., Franklin > > > Cc: meta-arago@arago-project.org > > > Subject: Re: [meta-arago] [PATCH 1/2] tisdk-rootfs-base-image: Rename > > > base file system image > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:34:44AM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:53:54AM -0400, Cooper Jr., Franklin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > What was the initial reason to start naming rootfs > > > > > > > > > > > > images with > > > > > > > > > > > > tisdk-rootfs- prefix? I remember it was something > > > > > > > > > > > > forced by the SDK > > > > > > > > setup... > > > > > > > > > > > [Franklin] > > > > > > > > > > > This was before my time so I am not sure what the > > > > > > > > > > > original reasoning > > > > > > was. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do assume there might be instances where some script > > > > > > > > > > > somewhere will need to be updated if it refers to the > > > > > > > > > > > full image as > > > > > > "tisdk-rootfs*" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, I located the change I was talking about: > > > > > > > > > > http://arago-project.org/git/?p=meta- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arago.git;a=commitdiff;h=91f2be34e301deebbc75c54bbad6a5a27e25bf2 > > > > > > > > > > c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The "tisdk-image class had issues" is a rather vague > > > > > > > > > > description, so I'm not sure or don't remember what was > > > > > > > > > > the problem that you had to rename the original > > > > > > > > > > arago-tisdk-image into > > > > > > tisdk-rootfs-image... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Franklin] Ah I remember. The TARGET_IMAGES variable is > > > > > > > > > used in two ways in that class. 1 to add a build > > > > > > > > > dependency and 2 to reference the image tarball. So the > > > > > > > > > assumption was that the recipe/package name was the same as the > > IMAGE_BASENAME. > > > > > > > > > So the recipe and IMAGE_BASENAME > > > > > > > > must > > > > > > > > > match. Otherwise the image would be built but the class > > > > > > > > > wouldn't know what tarball to look for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, OK, this is not exactly what I was looking for. Tracing > > > > > > > > even further back shows that you added the recipe to have > > > > > > > > IMAGE_BASENAME = > > > > > > "tisdk-rootfs": > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://arago-project.org/git/?p=meta- > > > > > > > > arago.git;a=commitdiff;h=f27b1f34aee2c2cbee25a0fb5b21cdb04f1 > > > > > > > > 6e > > > > > > > > c4a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you remember the reason for that? This image recipe was > > > > > > > > in Classic arago, but there it had the basename matching the > > > > > > > > recipe name. Wondering why the change? > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Franklin] I think I was simply trying to match the filesystem > > > > > > > tarball with the name used in previous sdks. I am assuming > > > > > > > that the SDK backend script that built the sdk renamed those filesystem > > files. > > > > > > > Looking at Sitara AMSDK > > > > > > > 05.05.01 (last oe-classic based sdk) the two filesystem > > > > > > > tarballs were named base-rootfs-am335x-evm.tar.gz and > > > > > > > tisdk-rootfs-am335x-evm.tar.gz. During that time I was focused > > > > > > > on just getting the filesystem working and wanted it to look > > > > > > > like the output from previous sdks. I don't think I had any other reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! Just wanted to check if there was some sort of > > > > > > requirement for that name change. If there is not, then we can > > > > > > look for a better names for full image as well as base image. > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we look into unifying the names for other image recipes? > > > > > > Is > > > > > > tisdk-rootfs- the best base we can think of? > > > > > > > > > [Franklin] I think it's important to separate the "arago" images > > > > > from the "sdk" images. I am currently ok with the naming > > > > > convention we use for our current images minus the one I created > > > > > this patch for :). But I'm open to suggestions. > > > > > > > > I'm not really sure what do you mean by separating arago from sdk. > > > > Arago distro is becoming the SDK, the Core TISDK one, to be exact. > > > > Other SDK products can build on top with slight variations. > > > > > > > > We can place more generic packagegroups and images into > > > > meta-arago-extras and keep TISDK specific ones in meta-arago-distro. > > > > > > > > As of the naming convention - I'm not exactly married to the arago- > > > > prefix for the image recipes, it was just a historic tradition - > > > > arago-base-image, arago-console-image, etc. I'm Ok with tisdk- > > > > prefix, but "rootfs" part always felt slightly artificial to me, as > > > > it was forced from outside and in OE images are images and there's > > > > no need to call > > > them rootfs. > > > > > > > > Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that now is the perfect time to > > > > align on the naming convention for our images and we don't need to > > > > stick to any of the existing names... > > > > > > Franklin, > > > > > > Can you think of a unified naming for all the images, including base > > > and full tisdk, as well as less common console and test images, that > > > is scalable enough. As I'm thinking going back to arago-base-image and arago- > > tisdk-image vs. > > > simplifying it to tisdk-base-image and tisdk-full-image. Plus it has > > > to work with your other packagegroup restructure proposal... :) > > [Franklin] > > > > How about the following: > > > > tisdk-rootfs-base-image -> arago-full-image ( me new proposed image) > > > > tisdk-rootfs-image -> arago-full-sdk-image arago-base-tisdk-image -> arago- > > base-sdk-image arago-core-tisdk-image -> arago-core-sdk-image Tisdk-server- > > rootfs-image -> arago-server-sdk-image > > > > Since our images are in meta-arago-distro which is dependent on meta-ti I think > > we could drop the "ti" from the image name to make it simpler. > > Based on the above logic I would probably change our packagegroups from > > using tisdk and simply call it sdk. > > But if anyone has an issue I am ok with keeping tisdk in the packagegroups and > > images name. > [Franklin] Thoughts? Yes, sorry, need bit more time...