Re: why is "package-management" defined as a PACKAGE_GROUP?

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

Hi Robert,

On Sunday 17 November 2013 11:17:13 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013, Chris Larson wrote:
> 
> ... huge snip that i hope won't be necessary ...
> 
> > This test you did makes no sense. Of course it’s in IMAGE_FEATURES,
> > you put it there. What you didn’t check is whether
> > ${ROOTFS_PKGMANAGE} ended up being installed in the image, which it
> > won’t be.
> 
>   i think i see my basic and fatal misunderstanding, and if you can
> tolerate one more post, i want to make sure i know what i did wrong as
> i want to write this up and i want to be accurate.
> 
>   as i understood it (apparently incorrectly), IMAGE_FEATURES fell
> into two categories:
> 
>   1) actual package groups, as defined in core-image.bbclass, as in:
> 
> PACKAGE_GROUP_x11 = "packagegroup-core-x11"
> PACKAGE_GROUP_x11-base = "packagegroup-core-x11-base"
> PACKAGE_GROUP_x11-sato = "packagegroup-core-x11-sato"

As I keep saying, these aren't package groups despite the name of the 
variable. Please stop calling them that. All they say is that if "x11" is 
present in IMAGE_FEATURES, bring in packagegroup-core-x11. The fact that these 
*do* point to actual package groups as packages is pretty much incidental.

>   2) non-package group values that were processed independently by
> code in image.bbclass, such as "read-only-rootfs" or "debug-tweaks"
> 
>   what i *thought* was that each setting had to be one *or* the other,
> but not both. so when i saw code in image.bbclass that was handling
> the "package-management" IMAGE_FEATURE, i immediately assumed that
> meant it couldn't *also* represent an actual package group. is that
> where i went wrong?
> 
>   so, in this one case for the IMAGE FEATURE "package-management",
> there is an actual package group defined as:
> 
> PACKAGE_GROUP_package-management = "${ROOTFS_PKGMANAGE}"

Not a package group.

> which represents the packages:
> 
> $ bb show -r core-image-base ROOTFS_PKGMANAGE
> Parsing recipes..done.
> # ROOTFS_PKGMANAGE=opkg opkg-collateral ${EXTRAOPKGCONFIG}
> ROOTFS_PKGMANAGE="opkg opkg-collateral poky-feed-config-opkg"
> $
> 
> but that feature *also* pulls in additional processing as it's defined
> in image.bbclass.
> 
>   have i finally got it right?

In that there are several things at work dealing with the single "package-
management" item, yes.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre