* [Webhob] Deployed or Included?
@ 2013-07-08 16:09 Barros Pena, Belen
2013-07-08 17:13 ` Jason Wessel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Barros Pena, Belen @ 2013-07-08 16:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: webhob@yoctoproject.org
I am looking at the table of packages that will be part of Web Hob. That
table will list all packages built during a certain build.
Not all the packages in that table ended up in the final image. To
differentiate them, there will be a column that will tell you if a package
is in the final image or isn't. How should that column be called:
Deployed? Included? Something else?
We are using "Included" in Hob, but there might be a better term.
Thanks!
Belen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Webhob] Deployed or Included?
2013-07-08 16:09 [Webhob] Deployed or Included? Barros Pena, Belen
@ 2013-07-08 17:13 ` Jason Wessel
2013-07-09 17:29 ` Barros Pena, Belen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jason Wessel @ 2013-07-08 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Barros Pena, Belen; +Cc: webhob@yoctoproject.org
On 07/08/2013 11:09 AM, Barros Pena, Belen wrote:
> I am looking at the table of packages that will be part of Web Hob. That
> table will list all packages built during a certain build.
What table are you making a reference to? I didn't see a pointer in the e-mail.
>
> Not all the packages in that table ended up in the final image. To
> differentiate them, there will be a column that will tell you if a package
> is in the final image or isn't. How should that column be called:
> Deployed? Included? Something else?
There is a distinct possibility that the number of packages built to support the webhob that go on the final target image is zero, particularly in the case that you just need a particular configuration of busybox + a kernel.
Without seeing your table it is hard to say, but generally we have nativesdk, native, cross and target packages. I would have imagined you can just specify if something is in the target image or not. There certainly are target packages that get built but not installed to the image, and for these we just use the term installed to sysroot vs installed to image.
Jason.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Webhob] Deployed or Included?
2013-07-08 17:13 ` Jason Wessel
@ 2013-07-09 17:29 ` Barros Pena, Belen
2013-07-09 17:42 ` Jeff Osier-Mixon
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Barros Pena, Belen @ 2013-07-09 17:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: webhob@yoctoproject.org
On 08/07/2013 18:13, "Jason Wessel" <jason.wessel@windriver.com> wrote:
>On 07/08/2013 11:09 AM, Barros Pena, Belen wrote:
>> I am looking at the table of packages that will be part of Web Hob. That
>> table will list all packages built during a certain build.
>
>What table are you making a reference to? I didn't see a pointer in the
>e-mail.
You didn't see it because there wasn't one: my bad. Here is a rough sketch
of the kind of table we are thinking of:
http://belenbarrospena.github.io/web-hob-1.5/all-packages-size.html
By the way, when I said: "I am looking at ..." what I meant was "I am
working on the design specification for the packages table that will be
part of Web Hob". Sorry for the vagueness.
>
>>
>> Not all the packages in that table ended up in the final image. To
>> differentiate them, there will be a column that will tell you if a
>>package
>> is in the final image or isn't. How should that column be called:
>> Deployed? Included? Something else?
>
>There is a distinct possibility that the number of packages built to
>support the webhob that go on the final target image is zero,
>particularly in the case that you just need a particular configuration of
>busybox + a kernel.
>
>Without seeing your table it is hard to say, but generally we have
>nativesdk, native, cross and target packages.
>I would have imagined you can just specify if something is in the target
>image or not.
>There certainly are target packages that get built but not installed to
>the image, and for these we just use the term installed to sysroot vs
>installed to image.
So, if I understand correctly, you are suggesting "installed" (to image),
instead of "included" or "deployed". Is that correct?
>
>Jason.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Webhob] Deployed or Included?
2013-07-09 17:29 ` Barros Pena, Belen
@ 2013-07-09 17:42 ` Jeff Osier-Mixon
2013-07-09 17:51 ` Barros Pena, Belen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Osier-Mixon @ 2013-07-09 17:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Barros Pena, Belen; +Cc: webhob@yoctoproject.org
Speaking ex cathedra (as an ex tech writer) I'd say either Included or
Installed would work, but the proper term would depend on when this
table is shown.
Included = included in the build, so it's a pre-build term.
Installed = installed in the rootfs, so it's a post-build term.
Deployed = installed onto the target - not appropriate for this list, I think.
As Jason says, packages can be built that are never inserted into the
rootfs, so if this is a list of all packages in the build, I'd stick
with Included.
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Barros Pena, Belen
<belen.barros.pena@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 08/07/2013 18:13, "Jason Wessel" <jason.wessel@windriver.com> wrote:
>
>>On 07/08/2013 11:09 AM, Barros Pena, Belen wrote:
>>> I am looking at the table of packages that will be part of Web Hob. That
>>> table will list all packages built during a certain build.
>>
>>What table are you making a reference to? I didn't see a pointer in the
>>e-mail.
>
> You didn't see it because there wasn't one: my bad. Here is a rough sketch
> of the kind of table we are thinking of:
>
> http://belenbarrospena.github.io/web-hob-1.5/all-packages-size.html
>
> By the way, when I said: "I am looking at ..." what I meant was "I am
> working on the design specification for the packages table that will be
> part of Web Hob". Sorry for the vagueness.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Not all the packages in that table ended up in the final image. To
>>> differentiate them, there will be a column that will tell you if a
>>>package
>>> is in the final image or isn't. How should that column be called:
>>> Deployed? Included? Something else?
>>
>>There is a distinct possibility that the number of packages built to
>>support the webhob that go on the final target image is zero,
>>particularly in the case that you just need a particular configuration of
>>busybox + a kernel.
>>
>>Without seeing your table it is hard to say, but generally we have
>>nativesdk, native, cross and target packages.
>>I would have imagined you can just specify if something is in the target
>>image or not.
>>There certainly are target packages that get built but not installed to
>>the image, and for these we just use the term installed to sysroot vs
>>installed to image.
>
> So, if I understand correctly, you are suggesting "installed" (to image),
> instead of "included" or "deployed". Is that correct?
>
>>
>>Jason.
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
> Registered No. 1134945 (England)
> Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
> VAT No: 860 2173 47
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>
> _______________________________________________
> webhob mailing list
> webhob@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/webhob
--
Jeff Osier-Mixon http://jefro.net/blog
Yocto Project Community Manager @Intel http://yoctoproject.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Webhob] Deployed or Included?
2013-07-09 17:42 ` Jeff Osier-Mixon
@ 2013-07-09 17:51 ` Barros Pena, Belen
2013-07-09 17:56 ` Jeff Osier-Mixon
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Barros Pena, Belen @ 2013-07-09 17:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Osier-Mixon; +Cc: webhob@yoctoproject.org
On 09/07/2013 18:42, "Jeff Osier-Mixon" <jefro@jefro.net> wrote:
>Speaking ex cathedra (as an ex tech writer) I'd say either Included or
>Installed would work, but the proper term would depend on when this
>table is shown.
>
>Included = included in the build, so it's a pre-build term.
>Installed = installed in the rootfs, so it's a post-build term.
>Deployed = installed onto the target - not appropriate for this list, I
>think.
This is really helpful, Jeffro. Thanks!
In our case, it is post-build, so that would mean "Installed".
>
>As Jason says, packages can be built that are never inserted into the
>rootfs, so if this is a list of all packages in the build, I'd stick
>with Included.
It is, with a twist. The table content can be filtered, and the default
state of the packages table will have an "installed" filter applied. This
means initially you will see only the packages installed in the rootfs,
but you can of course clear the filter to see all the packages (installed
or not) that have been built.
In the light of this, do you still think "included" better than
"installed"?
>
>
>On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Barros Pena, Belen
><belen.barros.pena@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08/07/2013 18:13, "Jason Wessel" <jason.wessel@windriver.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 07/08/2013 11:09 AM, Barros Pena, Belen wrote:
>>>> I am looking at the table of packages that will be part of Web Hob.
>>>>That
>>>> table will list all packages built during a certain build.
>>>
>>>What table are you making a reference to? I didn't see a pointer in
>>>the
>>>e-mail.
>>
>> You didn't see it because there wasn't one: my bad. Here is a rough
>>sketch
>> of the kind of table we are thinking of:
>>
>> http://belenbarrospena.github.io/web-hob-1.5/all-packages-size.html
>>
>> By the way, when I said: "I am looking at ..." what I meant was "I am
>> working on the design specification for the packages table that will be
>> part of Web Hob". Sorry for the vagueness.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not all the packages in that table ended up in the final image. To
>>>> differentiate them, there will be a column that will tell you if a
>>>>package
>>>> is in the final image or isn't. How should that column be called:
>>>> Deployed? Included? Something else?
>>>
>>>There is a distinct possibility that the number of packages built to
>>>support the webhob that go on the final target image is zero,
>>>particularly in the case that you just need a particular configuration
>>>of
>>>busybox + a kernel.
>>>
>>>Without seeing your table it is hard to say, but generally we have
>>>nativesdk, native, cross and target packages.
>>>I would have imagined you can just specify if something is in the target
>>>image or not.
>>>There certainly are target packages that get built but not installed to
>>>the image, and for these we just use the term installed to sysroot vs
>>>installed to image.
>>
>> So, if I understand correctly, you are suggesting "installed" (to
>>image),
>> instead of "included" or "deployed". Is that correct?
>>
>>>
>>>Jason.
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
>> Registered No. 1134945 (England)
>> Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
>> VAT No: 860 2173 47
>>
>> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
>> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
>> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
>> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> webhob mailing list
>> webhob@yoctoproject.org
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/webhob
>
>
>
>--
>Jeff Osier-Mixon http://jefro.net/blog
>Yocto Project Community Manager @Intel http://yoctoproject.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Webhob] Deployed or Included?
2013-07-09 17:51 ` Barros Pena, Belen
@ 2013-07-09 17:56 ` Jeff Osier-Mixon
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Osier-Mixon @ 2013-07-09 17:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Barros Pena, Belen; +Cc: webhob@yoctoproject.org
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Barros Pena, Belen
<belen.barros.pena@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 09/07/2013 18:42, "Jeff Osier-Mixon" <jefro@jefro.net> wrote:
>
>>Speaking ex cathedra (as an ex tech writer) I'd say either Included or
>>Installed would work, but the proper term would depend on when this
>>table is shown.
>>
>>Included = included in the build, so it's a pre-build term.
>>Installed = installed in the rootfs, so it's a post-build term.
>>Deployed = installed onto the target - not appropriate for this list, I
>>think.
>
> This is really helpful, Jeffro. Thanks!
>
> In our case, it is post-build, so that would mean "Installed".
>
>>
>>As Jason says, packages can be built that are never inserted into the
>>rootfs, so if this is a list of all packages in the build, I'd stick
>>with Included.
>
> It is, with a twist. The table content can be filtered, and the default
> state of the packages table will have an "installed" filter applied. This
> means initially you will see only the packages installed in the rootfs,
> but you can of course clear the filter to see all the packages (installed
> or not) that have been built.
>
> In the light of this, do you still think "included" better than
> "installed"?
Ah, I see - I misunderstood the point of the table. In that case,
Included would not be appropriate. How about "Built"?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-07-09 17:57 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-07-08 16:09 [Webhob] Deployed or Included? Barros Pena, Belen
2013-07-08 17:13 ` Jason Wessel
2013-07-09 17:29 ` Barros Pena, Belen
2013-07-09 17:42 ` Jeff Osier-Mixon
2013-07-09 17:51 ` Barros Pena, Belen
2013-07-09 17:56 ` Jeff Osier-Mixon
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.