any point in a single machine recipe using a machine-specific file?

any point in a single machine recipe using a machine-specific file?

[Robert P. J. Day]

  using the example i patched earlier, here's the file hierarchy for
raspberry pi's netbase recipe:

./netbase_5.0.bbappend
./netbase-5.0
./netbase-5.0/raspberrypi
./netbase-5.0/raspberrypi/interfaces
./netbase-5.0/raspberrypi/hosts

  i understand the notion of a machine-specific subdirectory for
files, such as what you'd find under a layer like meta-ti which
defines multiple machines, so this is understandable for meta-ti:

.
./netbase_5.0.bbappend
./netbase-5.0
./netbase-5.0/beagleboard
./netbase-5.0/beagleboard/interfaces

  but in the case of the rpi, is there any value in putting the files
under a machine-named subdirectory? of course it won't hurt, but is
there any point to it?

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: any point in a single machine recipe using a machine-specific file?

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1073 bytes --]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 09:49:56AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 
>   using the example i patched earlier, here's the file hierarchy for
> raspberry pi's netbase recipe:
> 
> ./netbase_5.0.bbappend
> ./netbase-5.0
> ./netbase-5.0/raspberrypi
> ./netbase-5.0/raspberrypi/interfaces
> ./netbase-5.0/raspberrypi/hosts
> 
>   i understand the notion of a machine-specific subdirectory for
> files, such as what you'd find under a layer like meta-ti which
> defines multiple machines, so this is understandable for meta-ti:
> 
> .
> ./netbase_5.0.bbappend
> ./netbase-5.0
> ./netbase-5.0/beagleboard
> ./netbase-5.0/beagleboard/interfaces
> 
>   but in the case of the rpi, is there any value in putting the files
> under a machine-named subdirectory? of course it won't hurt, but is
> there any point to it?

Yes, meta-rpi layer can be included when doing builds for different
MACHINEs, raspberrypi subdirectory makes sure that their interfaces,
hosts files are not used accidentaly

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

Re: any point in a single machine recipe using a machine-specific file?

[Burton, Ross]

On 19 April 2013 14:49, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
>   but in the case of the rpi, is there any value in putting the files
> under a machine-named subdirectory? of course it won't hurt, but is
> there any point to it?

You could argue the clarity that it will bring if another machine is
added to the BSP - the maintainer will be forced to decide if it's
common across all machines that the BSP will service, or truly is
specific to a particular machine.

Ross

Re: any point in a single machine recipe using a machine-specific file?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Burton, Ross wrote:

> On 19 April 2013 14:49, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> >   but in the case of the rpi, is there any value in putting the
> > files under a machine-named subdirectory? of course it won't hurt,
> > but is there any point to it?
>
> You could argue the clarity that it will bring if another machine is
> added to the BSP - the maintainer will be forced to decide if it's
> common across all machines that the BSP will service, or truly is
> specific to a particular machine.

  yes, i understand that, but is there a convention? i just want to
clarify that, in *this* case, there doesn't seem to be much value to
adding that extra directory level.

  and addressing martin's point, sure, if one includes the rpi layer
while building for another machine, it might make a difference, to
which i'd wonder, if you're building for a different machine, why are
you including the meta-rpi layer?

  from my perspective, it's a case of minimalism and being able to
explain stuff to students. if a student looked at that meta-rpi
netbase directory structure and asked why it was done that way, the
best answer i'd be able to give is that it's not essential but it
won't hurt anything, which sounds kind of lame. :-)

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: any point in a single machine recipe using a machine-specific file?

[Tomas Frydrych]

On 19/04/13 15:15, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> i'd wonder, if you're building for a different machine, why are
> you including the meta-rpi layer?

Because at a distro-level you often want to target different architectures.

> best answer i'd be able to give is that it's not essential but it
> won't hurt anything, which sounds kind of lame. :-)

No, it's is essential that it is done this way, BSPs are for specific
machines, so they should never install generic config files.

Tomas

Re: any point in a single machine recipe using a machine-specific file?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Tomas Frydrych wrote:

> On 19/04/13 15:15, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > i'd wonder, if you're building for a different machine, why are
> > you including the meta-rpi layer?
>
> Because at a distro-level you often want to target different
> architectures.

  yes, i appreciate that but, in *this* case, we're talking about a
single machine with a single architecture. i'm pretty sure we're
agreeing, i'm just pointing out that in this specific example, having
a machine-specific subdirectory is overkill.

  in any case, is this point made in any of the existing
documentation? since it seems kind of important to clarify.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: any point in a single machine recipe using a machine-specific file?

[Tomas Frydrych]

On 19/04/13 15:34, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Tomas Frydrych wrote:
> 
>> On 19/04/13 15:15, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>> i'd wonder, if you're building for a different machine, why are
>>> you including the meta-rpi layer?
>>
>> Because at a distro-level you often want to target different
>> architectures.
> 
>   yes, i appreciate that but, in *this* case, we're talking about a
> single machine with a single architecture. i'm pretty sure we're
> agreeing, i'm just pointing out that in this specific example, having
> a machine-specific subdirectory is overkill.

BSP layers are not stand alone entities, they can never assume that no
other machines exist in the ecosystem they are pulled into. So, no, it
is most definitely not an overkill. I am not sure how else to explain
it, maybe fix up the RPI layer the way you intended locally and build
yourself a Qemu image, see what happens to your interfaces file.

Tomas

-- 
http://sleepfive.com

Re: any point in a single machine recipe using a machine-specific file?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Tomas Frydrych wrote:

> On 19/04/13 15:34, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Tomas Frydrych wrote:
> >
> >> On 19/04/13 15:15, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >>> i'd wonder, if you're building for a different machine, why are
> >>> you including the meta-rpi layer?
> >>
> >> Because at a distro-level you often want to target different
> >> architectures.
> >
> >   yes, i appreciate that but, in *this* case, we're talking about a
> > single machine with a single architecture. i'm pretty sure we're
> > agreeing, i'm just pointing out that in this specific example, having
> > a machine-specific subdirectory is overkill.
>
> BSP layers are not stand alone entities, they can never assume that
> no other machines exist in the ecosystem they are pulled into. So,
> no, it is most definitely not an overkill. I am not sure how else to
> explain it, maybe fix up the RPI layer the way you intended locally
> and build yourself a Qemu image, see what happens to your interfaces
> file.

  no, no, i'm good with this -- is this point made emphatically
anywhere in the existing docs?

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: any point in a single machine recipe using a machine-specific file?

[Tomas Frydrych]

On 19/04/13 15:02, Burton, Ross wrote:
> On 19 April 2013 14:49, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
>>   but in the case of the rpi, is there any value in putting the files
>> under a machine-named subdirectory? of course it won't hurt, but is
>> there any point to it?
> 
> You could argue the clarity that it will bring if another machine is
> added to the BSP - the maintainer will be forced to decide if it's
> common across all machines that the BSP will service, or truly is
> specific to a particular machine.

No, no, no, this has nothing to do with clarity, it's the only way in
which it can be done without breaking other machines. As Martin said,
multiple BSP layers often are included at the same time, and if a config
file pulled in by a BSP bbappend is not made machine specific (which is
what the machine specific directory means), it will be installed for any
machine that does not come with a higher priority bbappend that also
overrides this file.

As an additional point, the 'interfaces' file should not be included in
a netbase bbappend, it's not part of the netbase base package ... I
opened a bug against meta-yocto-bsp for this, but seems this is more
wide spread.

Tomas

> 
> Ross
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto


-- 
http://sleepfive.com

Re: any point in a single machine recipe using a machine-specific file?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Tomas Frydrych wrote:

> On 19/04/13 15:02, Burton, Ross wrote:
> > On 19 April 2013 14:49, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> >>   but in the case of the rpi, is there any value in putting the
> >> files under a machine-named subdirectory? of course it won't
> >> hurt, but is there any point to it?
> >
> > You could argue the clarity that it will bring if another machine
> > is added to the BSP - the maintainer will be forced to decide if
> > it's common across all machines that the BSP will service, or
> > truly is specific to a particular machine.
>
> No, no, no, this has nothing to do with clarity, it's the only way
> in which it can be done without breaking other machines. As Martin
> said, multiple BSP layers often are included at the same time, and
> if a config file pulled in by a BSP bbappend is not made machine
> specific (which is what the machine specific directory means), it
> will be installed for any machine that does not come with a higher
> priority bbappend that also overrides this file.

  ok, now we're getting somewhere -- so it would be *strongly*
*encouraged* to make all of these bbappend files machine-specific?
that is, if you want to avoid potential confusion down the road. i'm
still a bit queasy on the idea that you'd include so many layers that
this might be an issue but ... whatever. i mean, if i wasn't
specifically building for an rpi, i can't imagine why i'd include the
meta-rpi layer.

> As an additional point, the 'interfaces' file should not be included
> in a netbase bbappend, it's not part of the netbase base package ...
> I opened a bug against meta-yocto-bsp for this, but seems this is
> more wide spread.

  huh, you're right, i'd never noticed that.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: any point in a single machine recipe using a machine-specific file?

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3532 bytes --]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:23:01AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Tomas Frydrych wrote:
> 
> > On 19/04/13 15:02, Burton, Ross wrote:
> > > On 19 April 2013 14:49, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > >>   but in the case of the rpi, is there any value in putting the
> > >> files under a machine-named subdirectory? of course it won't
> > >> hurt, but is there any point to it?
> > >
> > > You could argue the clarity that it will bring if another machine
> > > is added to the BSP - the maintainer will be forced to decide if
> > > it's common across all machines that the BSP will service, or
> > > truly is specific to a particular machine.
> >
> > No, no, no, this has nothing to do with clarity, it's the only way
> > in which it can be done without breaking other machines. As Martin
> > said, multiple BSP layers often are included at the same time, and
> > if a config file pulled in by a BSP bbappend is not made machine
> > specific (which is what the machine specific directory means), it
> > will be installed for any machine that does not come with a higher
> > priority bbappend that also overrides this file.
> 
>   ok, now we're getting somewhere -- so it would be *strongly*
> *encouraged* to make all of these bbappend files machine-specific?
> that is, if you want to avoid potential confusion down the road. i'm
> still a bit queasy on the idea that you'd include so many layers that
> this might be an issue but ... whatever. i mean, if i wasn't
> specifically building for an rpi, i can't imagine why i'd include the
> meta-rpi layer.

This is my typical layer list

meta-jama         = "master:33e48de8cf588c9df80025339d7883e25a3e3fb8"
meta-shr
meta-aurora
meta-fso
meta-android      = "webOS-ports/master:0fe4b5559335d24764260d47d3f60d68de502a61"
meta-oe
meta-efl
meta-gnome
meta-gpe
meta-multimedia
meta-networking
meta-initramfs
meta-systemd      = "jansa/test:a5c0447694ddacab285f192e1d8e425f6899d6e3"
meta-osmocombb
meta-nokia
meta-htc
meta-palm
meta-openmoko
meta-samsung      = "webOS-ports/master:0fe4b5559335d24764260d47d3f60d68de502a61"
meta-browser      = "jansa/test:359cdae903c3772796b4658dd3129742d9a76d05"
meta-handheld     = "jansa/spitz:68177884e36e08cb76f11048bdf8ee3435b75ea3"
meta              = "jansa/test:2ac95cf4581c963ae49bc6f7af430a05228c34bc"

so I have at least 6 different BSPs with += 10 MACHINEs all these BSPs are 
playing nice together and that's how it should be..

IIRC Angstorm includes even more BSPs..

> 
> > As an additional point, the 'interfaces' file should not be included
> > in a netbase bbappend, it's not part of the netbase base package ...
> > I opened a bug against meta-yocto-bsp for this, but seems this is
> > more wide spread.
> 
>   huh, you're right, i'd never noticed that.
> 
> rday
> 
> -- 
> 
> ========================================================================
> Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
>                         http://crashcourse.ca
> 
> Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
> LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
> ========================================================================
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]