From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tinyArch.localdomain (unknown [78.110.170.148]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AEA7E0124A for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 01:30:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.57] (unknown [195.171.99.130]) by tinyArch.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 166CC22D09 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:09:03 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4E96A198.9030109@communistcode.co.uk> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:30:16 +0100 From: Jack Mitchell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: yocto@yoctoproject.org References: <4E933C41.4000207@linux.intel.com> <4E94D624.1020107@am.sony.com> <4E95C787.3020000@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <4E95C787.3020000@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: RFC: User configurable recipe features X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:30:24 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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, >