From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [66.111.4.25] (helo=out1.smtp.messagingengine.com) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1HiniI-0003vu-E0 for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 01 May 2007 10:27:58 +0200 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 820B021AE93 for ; Tue, 1 May 2007 04:18:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heartbeat2.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 01 May 2007 04:18:41 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: ENtuKgDCLcL2GMD3bPF63tHcEKGdO3Rt9ph62BB0imAq 1178007521 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (secure.astc-design.com [203.122.250.137]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCBDD17862 for ; Tue, 1 May 2007 04:18:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4636F787.8030902@whitby.id.au> Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 17:47:11 +0930 From: Rod Whitby User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Subject: RFC: Rename MACHINE_TASK_PROVIDER to DEFAULT_TASK_PROVIDER X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 08:27:58 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > so in my mokoslug distro, I set MACHINE_TASK_PROVIDER to task-boot or task-base, depending on flash size. > what is MACHINE_TASK_PROVIDER really meant to be used for? > to distinguish between task-bootstrap and task-base > does task-bootstrap still exist? > rwhitby: I hope not > koen: so MACHINE_TASK_PROVIDER has no current reason for existence then? > (and no definition of what it should be used for if it did have a current reason for existence) > rwhitby: not that I know off, but your task-boot suggestion would make sense > koen: So it really should now be called something like BOOTSTRAP_IMAGE_FOUNDATION_TASK or something? > (since it doesn't have anything to do with MACHINEs) > nor with BOOTSTRAP > something like DEFAULT_TASK_PROVIDER? > yep, DEFAULT_TASK_PROVIDER floats my boat. > do you want to write an RFC for that? The proposal is to replace MACHINE_TASK_PROVIDER with DEFAULT_TASK_PROVIDER throughout OE, and encourage all image-foo.bb maintainers to base their image on DEFAULT_TASK_PROVIDER (which can be set to task-boot, or task-base, or perhaps some other distro-specific single task-foo value), plus other image-specific stuff. Comments? Objections? BTW, task-bootstrap existence is as follows: > ./conf/distro/generic.conf:PREFERRED_PROVIDER_task-bootstrap = "task-bootstrap" > ./conf/distro/include/oplinux.inc:PREFERRED_PROVIDER_task-bootstrap = "task-base" > ./conf/distro/angstrom-2007.1.conf:PREFERRED_PROVIDER_task-bootstrap = "task-bootstrap" > ./conf/distro/jlime-donkey.conf:PREFERRED_PROVIDER_task-bootstrap = "task-bootstrap" > ./conf/distro/openprotium.conf:#PREFERRED_PROVIDER_task-bootstrap = "task-bootstrap" > ./conf/machine/gumstix.conf:PREFERRED_VERSION_task-bootstrap = "1.0unionroot" > ./packages/obsolete/tasks/task-bootstrap-unionroot.bb:PROVIDES = "task-bootstrap" > ./packages/obsolete/tasks/task-bootstrap-unionroot.bb:RPROVIDES = "task-bootstrap" > ./packages/obsolete/tasks/task-bootstrap-unionroot.bb:require task-bootstrap.inc > ./packages/obsolete/tasks/task-bootstrap.bb:require task-bootstrap.inc > ./packages/images/jlime-opie.bb:DEPENDS = "task-bootstrap task-opie" > ./packages/images/jlime-opie.bb:INSTALL_PACKAGES = "task-bootstrap task-opie-base task-opie-base-applets \ > ./removal.txt:Package Name: task-bootstrap* -- Rod