Re: [Angstrom-devel] RFC: Add ipkg to minimal image

[Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Koen Kooi schreef:
> Richard Purdie schreef:
>> On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 09:17 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>> Rod Whitby schreef:
>>>> Rod Whitby wrote:
>>>>> I just realised that minimal-image.bb doesn't include ipkg, whereas the
>>>>> first image which does include ipkg (console-image) includes a whole lot
>>>>> of other stuff which could be installed using ipkg after first boot and
>>>>> network access, and which make the image too big for a machine with
>>>>> limited flash space (like an NSLU2).
>>>> RFC #1:
>>>>> Is there a reason why minimal-image does not include ipkg?  What exactly
>>>>> is the definition of what should be in minimal-image which excludes the
>>>>> ability to install further packages?
>>> Marcin and I had a discussion about that, but I can't remember the
>>> outcome. So "I have no strong opinions on that".
>> I think minimal was really intended for people trying to boot systems
>> for the first time and really is 'the bare essentials to boot'. Having
>> said that I appreciate the problem of creating an image cut down enough
>> for the NSLU2. 
> 
>> Ideally, MACHINE=nslu2 should make the console image become small enough
>> to be usable for the device even if that different compared to the
>> minimal image is just the package manager due to size constraints...
> 
>> On a related but different note, the presence of a package manager or
>> not sounds like an DISTRO_FEATURE. Perhaps we should add
>> "package-manager" as a DISTRO_FEATURE and then use this to decide
>> whether a package manager should be installed into an image. The package
>> manager to install should determined by the class building the image so
>> you end up with a package manager appropriate to the image - ipkg or
>> dpkg+apt currently.
> 
> For angstrom it's an IMAGE_FEATURE, since some images need it (e.g.
> console-image) and others don't (e.g. initramfs).
> Right not you can set ANGSTROM_PKG_FORMAT to 'deb' or 'ipkg' to create
> images using .ipk or .deb packages, with no rebuild needed, changing it
> halfway during a build and restarting bitbake "Just Works(TM)". Any
> changes to how a packagemanager is installed must keep that
> 'automagical' feature. The only thing missing in Rods patch is to set
> the packagemanager var in
> conf/distro/include/angstrom-package-{deb,ipkg}.inc.

To make it a bit more clear:

There are 3 seperate items being discusses here:

 1. how to stop a packagemanager getting into an image
 2. selecting which packageformat the build should use
 3. selecting which packagemanager handles which packageformat (ipkg can
handle .debs for example)

ANGSTROM_PKG_FORMAT handles 2. and 3., but not 1. (yet)

I think having a flag indicating *which* packagemanager gets is (like
Rods patch does) is a good thing, but a flag toggling the presence of
the packagemanager wouldn't be, since you can't distinguish the
resulting images from each other.
I think creating e.g. <foo>-nopm.bb recipes that do 'require <foo>.bb ;
PACKAGE_MANAGER = " "' would be the least confusing option.

I hope this clears things up a bit.

regards,

Koen



- --
koen@dominion.kabel.utwente.nl will go go away in december 2007, please
use k.kooi@student.utwente.nl instead.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFHUtDFMkyGM64RGpERAq9xAJ9XRjlHv8LPiLcdnARLUUBXCc2t2ACfXM03
R/javXrBLWmVDem0N/t7DT8=
=qnhS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----