Re: meta-mono core-image-mono failing

[Alex J Lennon <ajlennon@dynamicdevices.co.uk>]

On 22/05/2014 09:40, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 09:29 +0100, Alex J Lennon wrote:
>> On 22/05/2014 09:23, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 00:23 +0100, Alex J Lennon wrote:
>>>> Thanks Stefan.  > daisy was my suspicion but that seemed unlikely so I
>>>> have a clean Fedora build underway with daisy / meta-mono /
>>>> core-image-mono to prove it to myself as a first pass before trying master.
>>>>
>>>> As I do this I am thinking it would be nice if there were canonical
>>>> images of Yocto-X.Y available to run up on Amazon/Azure/elsewhere to
>>>> prove these things out in the background without mashing my SSDs.
>>>>
>>>> I am guessing somebody has done this already but I hunted around Amazon
>>>> and couldn't see any community images that looked useful (?)
>>>>
>>>> Similarly (and I confess I haven't yet had time to understand
>>>> AutoBuilder as I should) presumably there are a number of daily builds
>>>> in the cloud, on each of the supported host platforms, for each of the
>>>> advertised layers, and if they fail then maintainers are kicked? Is that
>>>> how things work? If so, can you advise how I request to add meta-mono to
>>>> the kick-list?
>>> Its a nice idea but right now we struggle to test and keep OE-Core
>>> building, let alone trying to define tests for every other layer :(. The
>>> amount of time I and others spend on this for OE-Core is phenomenal.
>> I can well imagine Richard! I've often wondered how the team(s) manage
>> to keep everything running along so smoothly.
>>
>>> If we had more people and resources, sure but right now there is no such
>>> setup.
>> Like you I'm very time constrained here unfortunately, but I like the
>> idea of having some baseline VM images ready to go on Amazon or Azure as
>> a starting point for testing at least.
>>
>> If such a thing hasn't already been done I might try to put those
>> together. If I do get around to it I'll you know (if of interest)
> FWIW we do have the build-appliance image and that is able to run builds
> within it. It sounds like you just need a slightly different version of
> that (with the UI removed).

Thanks Richard. That sounds useful.

So, I have the build-appliance image running in VMWare. I was also
looking at the design document here,

https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Build_Appliance_Design

The appliance image seems quite large, at 4GB for the vmdk or so
uncompressed, in the context of aiming for a 100MB download?

Looking at the f/s it seems most of this is because the sources have
already been downloaded and the native recipes built?

3.5G    ./build/downloads
1.3G    ./build/tmp/work
2.1G    ./build/tmp
5.5G    ./build
5.6G    .

I guess there's a tradeoff here between getting started building images
within the appliance quickly and the size of the appliance download?

Then, looking at the running virtual machine, it seems that if I do
something like bitbake build-appliance on my own Ubuntu 12.04 host I
would generate an appliance targetted at qemux86-64?

What I'd believe I'd like to have is ready-to-run images of the vanilla
host installations ( Fedora, OpenSUSE, Debian, and Ubuntu, x32 x64),
prepped with needed Yocto dependencies and a baseline daisy tree, to
verify Yocto build in those host environments.

I don't quite understand what elements of "my" build host actually get
pulled into the appliance image that is built (I suspect none?)

So I wonder if there's a way with the appliance to build something that
I can then sit on top of those vanilla host installations (possibly with
a separate block store image somewhere in AWS containing all the
downloads so I don't have that replicated across the images).

Does that make sense? Can you offer any advice on how to achieve that?

Thanks,

Alex