Re: RFC: User configurable recipe features

[Jack Mitchell <ml@communistcode.co.uk>]

On 12/10/2011 17:59, Darren Hart wrote:
>
> On 10/11/2011 04:49 PM, Tim Bird wrote:
>> On 10/10/2011 11:41 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>> As part of working on meta-tiny, I've come across a need (want?) to
>>> present users with the ability to select some set of features in a 
>>> local
>>> configuration file that will impact the build of the image and a set of
>>> recipes.
>> Can you tell me more about meta-tiny?  this is the first I've heard
>> about this (sorry if discussion went by on the mailing list and I
>> missed it), and I'm very interested.
>>
>> I'm currently doing some size-related work for Sony (including
>> some work to support 4K stacks).
>>
> Perhaps while I have the attention of a few interested parties, it would
> be a good time for a poll. I'm interested in your motivation for smaller
> images.
>
> Are you building SoC's with memory on die and needing to keep the memory
> footprint down to save precious die real-estate?

no

>
> Are you looking at creating mass-market products and saving a few
> pennies on the flash storage translates to real money, so you want to
> minimize the physical size?

no

>
> Are you concerned with boot time, and have connected larger image sizes
> with longer boot times?

I am concerned with boot time, but don't believe it is image size that 
ramps it up.

>
> Is there another motivating factor for your interest in small images?

Yes, a smaller system which is easier to check, build and maintain. In 
my office I am the leading driver for using linux in a team of 3 (two 
software, one fpga developer) so the less time I spend building, 
rebuilding and checking features I don't need, to ensure they don't 
comprimise the stability of the system, the more faith they have in the 
system I'm putting forward.

>
> Thanks,
>