Re: [meta-arago] [PATCH] all: Remove excessive switches based on gpu

[Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org>]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 10:52:34AM -0600, Ryan Eatmon wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/27/2023 9:52, Andrew Davis wrote:
> >On 1/26/23 6:51 PM, Randolph Sapp via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
> >>On Thu, Jan 26 2023 at 03:58:01 PM -0500, Denys Dmytriyenko
> >><denis@denix.org> wrote:
> >>>I'm realizing now that simply depending on "opengl"
> >>>DISTRO_FEATURES won't be
> >>>enough, unfortunately.
> >>>
> >>>The issue is that DISTRO_FEATURES are set by the distro globally for all
> >>>machines, whether with accelerated graphics, display w/o acceleration or
> >>>completely headless. E.g. when building for J7200, "opengl"
> >>>will be set, but
> >>>none of the graphics packages should be built or installed
> >>>into the image.
> >>>
> >>>So, some sort of check for MACHINE_FEATURES or PREFERRED_PROVIDER (less
> >>>elegant) would still be needed in some places...
> >>
> >>Arguably that's a package group / distro target issue. I believe
> >>when a user selects the default image with all features enabled
> >>for J721E and J721S2 the package selection should be equivalent
> >>(or at least as equivalent as possible with the stuff going on
> >>now in meta-ti) to align with the distro features selected. I
> >>believe the solution to this is to add a headless target/image
> >>that removes Qt, GTK, etc. from the selected package groups and
> >>to suggest the use of that instead if users want a truly
> >>headless distro.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Agree here, I believe this was the solution we came up with in
> >our call the other day.
> >
> >I'd go as far as suggesting we drop the "default" image and try to match
> >Ubuntu naming here. Have 3 images: Desktop, Server, and IoT. (IoT is
> >a rebranded tisdk-thinlinux-image). User selects the one that matches
> >their usecase, no need to force them into one bucket automatically based
> >on their hardware.
> >
> >Andrew
> 
> 
> That level of renaming will likely require a broader audience.  I
> agree that it would be clearer naming to follow what other
> distributions do and not invent our own names.

Agree. As I mentioned on the call yesterday, last round of image (re-)naming 
took quite a while and lots of effort to get everyone on the product side 
aligned and agree...

Moreover, images is just part of the problem - some thought needs to be put 
into how the devkit is produced (and or named) and the top-level SDK product 
bundle, which combines all images, devkit and docs/manifests.

-- 
Denys