Re: [PATCH 1/2] tisdk-rootfs-base-image: Rename base file system image

[Denys Dmytriyenko <denys@ti.com>]

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 03:28:43PM -0400, Maupin, Chase wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: meta-arago-bounces@arago-project.org [mailto:meta-arago-
> >bounces@arago-project.org] On Behalf Of 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=f27b1f34aee2c2cbee25a0fb5b21cdb04f16e
> >> > > > > > 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)
> 
> What will this image contain?
> 
> >
> >tisdk-rootfs-image -> arago-full-sdk-image
> 
> I want to differentiate between rootfs vs. sdk images.  So maybe this one is 
> arago-sdk-full-rootfs-image

Heh, I was the one who asked Franklin specifically to drop "rootfs" part... :) 
Please read the above explanation. For the most part, images are rootfs. But I 
see what you are saying - we now have these hybrid SDK images that contain 
other rootfs images, kernel/bootloader images and devkit(s). So, how about we 
clearly mark those instead of everything else with "rootfs"?


> >arago-base-tisdk-image -> arago-base-sdk-image
> 
> arago-sdk-base-rootfs-image
> 
> >arago-core-tisdk-image -> arago-core-sdk-image
> 
> Keep the same
> 
> >Tisdk-server-rootfs-image -> arago-server-sdk-image
> 
> arago-sdk-server-rootfs-image
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> >
> >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.
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Denys
> >_______________________________________________
> >meta-arago mailing list
> >meta-arago@arago-project.org
> >http://arago-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/meta-arago