RFC: Add ipkg to minimal image

RFC: Add ipkg to minimal image

[Rod Whitby]

I just realised that minimal-image.bb doesn't include ipkg, whereas the
first image which does include ipkg (console-image) includes a whole lot
of other stuff which could be installed using ipkg after first boot and
network access, and which make the image too big for a machine with
limited flash space (like an NSLU2).

Is there a reason why minimal-image does not include ipkg?  What exactly
is the definition of what should be in minimal-image which excludes the
ability to install further packages?

Does anyone object to me adding ipkg support to minimal-image?

FYI, minimal-image.rootfs.jffs2 for ixp4xx is 3.8M whereas
console-image.rootfs.jffs2 for ixp4xx is 7.1M

-- Rod

Re: RFC: Add ipkg to minimal image

[Rod Whitby]

Rod Whitby wrote:
> I just realised that minimal-image.bb doesn't include ipkg, whereas the
> first image which does include ipkg (console-image) includes a whole lot
> of other stuff which could be installed using ipkg after first boot and
> network access, and which make the image too big for a machine with
> limited flash space (like an NSLU2).

RFC #1:
> Is there a reason why minimal-image does not include ipkg?  What exactly
> is the definition of what should be in minimal-image which excludes the
> ability to install further packages?

RFC #2:
> Does anyone object to me adding ipkg support to minimal-image?

OK, of course the choice of ipkg as the package manager is
distro-specific, and depends on the distro including feed configuration
(although just having a package manager on hand even with a feed
configuration would be a useful addition to a minimal image).

So my revised RFC #2 is to add a DISTRO_PACKAGE_MANAGER variable, which
DISTROs define (along with their feeds), and use that variable directly
in the tasks and images which should include the ability to install
additional packages after first boot, instead of the package manager
stuff just being part of the generic DISTRO_EXTRA_RDEPENDS additions and
all the additional stuff that includes which could be ipkg installed
later if you have limited flash space and need to pick and choose what
you include.

Whether or not that gets added to minimal-image, or whether we need a
new minimal-but-expandable-by-installing-packages-image, will depend on
the answer to RFC #1.

Comments?

-- Rod

Re: [Angstrom-devel] RFC: Add ipkg to minimal image

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Rod Whitby schreef:
> Rod Whitby wrote:
>> I just realised that minimal-image.bb doesn't include ipkg, whereas the
>> first image which does include ipkg (console-image) includes a whole lot
>> of other stuff which could be installed using ipkg after first boot and
>> network access, and which make the image too big for a machine with
>> limited flash space (like an NSLU2).
> 
> RFC #1:
>> Is there a reason why minimal-image does not include ipkg?  What exactly
>> is the definition of what should be in minimal-image which excludes the
>> ability to install further packages?

Marcin and I had a discussion about that, but I can't remember the
outcome. So "I have no strong opinions on that".

> RFC #2:
>> Does anyone object to me adding ipkg support to minimal-image?

I'll stick with "I have no strong opinions on that". :)


> OK, of course the choice of ipkg as the package manager is
> distro-specific, and depends on the distro including feed configuration
> (although just having a package manager on hand even with a feed
> configuration would be a useful addition to a minimal image).
> 
> So my revised RFC #2 is to add a DISTRO_PACKAGE_MANAGER variable, which
> DISTROs define 

DISTRO_PACKAGE_MANAGER is in package-space, so it should only show up in
R*, right? Sounds like a pretty good idea. As a side note, distros will
need to do more than that to switch packageformat or packagemanager, but
that's outside the scope of this discussion.

regards,

Koen


> -- Rod
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list
> Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel
> 


- --
koen@dominion.kabel.utwente.nl will go go away in december 2007, please
use k.kooi@student.utwente.nl instead.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFHUmn8MkyGM64RGpERAjowAJ95XuhuVSK6vxB0Wqff0jqduYxJlACbBl2U
rt+wJMZ5N89FQS67lG2UOfE=
=BkC3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [Angstrom-devel] RFC: Add ipkg to minimal image

[Rod Whitby]

Koen Kooi wrote:
> Rod Whitby schreef:
>> OK, of course the choice of ipkg as the package manager is
>> distro-specific, and depends on the distro including feed configuration
>> (although just having a package manager on hand even without a feed
>> configuration would be a useful addition to a minimal image).
> 
>> So my revised RFC #2 is to add a DISTRO_PACKAGE_MANAGER variable, which
>> DISTROs define 
> 
> DISTRO_PACKAGE_MANAGER is in package-space, so it should only show up in
> R*, right? Sounds like a pretty good idea. As a side note, distros will
> need to do more than that to switch packageformat or packagemanager, but
> that's outside the scope of this discussion.

My proposed patch follows.  Any objections?

============================================================
--- conf/distro/angstrom-2007.1.conf    c6bbfa10816eda24513e92b21827c75003bb4daa
+++ conf/distro/angstrom-2007.1.conf    508cc6d61d863e169c13b5ff0295b66f3608f6de
@@ -224,7 +224,6 @@ EXTRA_STUFF ?= ""


 # Angstrom want to ship some extra stuff. This should be moved into task-base eventually
-# contains ipkg specific stuff as well :(

 #work around a bitbake bug where mtd-utils-native isn't created so do_rootfs fails
 DISTRO_EXTRA_DEPENDS += " \
@@ -235,7 +234,6 @@ DISTRO_EXTRA_RDEPENDS += "\
     update-modules \
     ${@base_contains("MACHINE_FEATURES", "screen", "psplash", "",d)} \
     angstrom-version \
-    ipkg ipkg-collateral \
     util-linux-mount util-linux-umount \
     ${EXTRA_STUFF} \
     ${DEBUG_APPS} \
============================================================
--- packages/images/minimal-image.bb    c74056146aaed6f3e2cd64879f504ea6920efb59
+++ packages/images/minimal-image.bb    dc0caa8692fe8e856f0e752e6d88fe50851fe435
@@ -1,12 +1,14 @@ DISTRO_SSH_DAEMON ?= "dropbear"
 #Angstrom minimalist image
 #gives you a small images with ssh access

 ANGSTROM_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= ""
 DISTRO_SSH_DAEMON ?= "dropbear"
+DISTRO_PACKAGE_MANAGER ?= "ipkg ipkg-collateral"

 IMAGE_INSTALL = "task-boot \
             util-linux-mount util-linux-umount \
             ${DISTRO_SSH_DAEMON} \
+            ${DISTRO_PACKAGE_MANAGER} \
             angstrom-version \
           "

============================================================
--- packages/tasks/task-base.bb 6f33e4ea8083953d24993dca089ae71114f8a639
+++ packages/tasks/task-base.bb 22635c1ee42f15cae81e8d4a5b07e8dea4b07f49
@@ -64,6 +64,11 @@ DISTRO_SSH_DAEMON ?= "dropbear"
 DISTRO_SSH_DAEMON ?= "dropbear"

 #
+# ipkg, or something else
+#
+DISTRO_PACKAGE_MANAGER ?= "ipkg ipkg-collateral"
+
+#
 # pcmciautils for >= 2.6.13-rc1, pcmcia-cs for others
 #
 PCMCIA_MANAGER ?= "${@base_contains('MACHINE_FEATURES', 'kernel26','pcmciautils','pcmcia-cs',d)} "
@@ -82,6 +87,7 @@ RDEPENDS_task-base = "\
     task-distro-base \
     task-machine-base \
     ${DISTRO_SSH_DAEMON} \
+    ${DISTRO_PACKAGE_MANAGER} \
     ${HOTPLUG} \
     \
     ${@base_contains('MACHINE_FEATURES', 'kernel26','task-base-kernel26','task-base-kernel24',d)} \

-- Rod

Re: [Angstrom-devel] RFC: Add ipkg to minimal image

[Richard Purdie]

On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 09:17 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Rod Whitby schreef:
> > Rod Whitby wrote:
> >> I just realised that minimal-image.bb doesn't include ipkg, whereas the
> >> first image which does include ipkg (console-image) includes a whole lot
> >> of other stuff which could be installed using ipkg after first boot and
> >> network access, and which make the image too big for a machine with
> >> limited flash space (like an NSLU2).
> > 
> > RFC #1:
> >> Is there a reason why minimal-image does not include ipkg?  What exactly
> >> is the definition of what should be in minimal-image which excludes the
> >> ability to install further packages?
> 
> Marcin and I had a discussion about that, but I can't remember the
> outcome. So "I have no strong opinions on that".

I think minimal was really intended for people trying to boot systems
for the first time and really is 'the bare essentials to boot'. Having
said that I appreciate the problem of creating an image cut down enough
for the NSLU2. 

Ideally, MACHINE=nslu2 should make the console image become small enough
to be usable for the device even if that different compared to the
minimal image is just the package manager due to size constraints...

On a related but different note, the presence of a package manager or
not sounds like an DISTRO_FEATURE. Perhaps we should add
"package-manager" as a DISTRO_FEATURE and then use this to decide
whether a package manager should be installed into an image. The package
manager to install should determined by the class building the image so
you end up with a package manager appropriate to the image - ipkg or
dpkg+apt currently.

Does that seem reasonable?

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [Angstrom-devel] RFC: Add ipkg to minimal image

[Holger Freyther]

Am 02.12.2007 um 17:01 schrieb Richard Purdie:

> Does that seem reasonable?

As usual, it does seem reasonable.

z.

Re: [Angstrom-devel] RFC: Add ipkg to minimal image

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Richard Purdie schreef:
> On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 09:17 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Rod Whitby schreef:
>>> Rod Whitby wrote:
>>>> I just realised that minimal-image.bb doesn't include ipkg, whereas the
>>>> first image which does include ipkg (console-image) includes a whole lot
>>>> of other stuff which could be installed using ipkg after first boot and
>>>> network access, and which make the image too big for a machine with
>>>> limited flash space (like an NSLU2).
>>> RFC #1:
>>>> Is there a reason why minimal-image does not include ipkg?  What exactly
>>>> is the definition of what should be in minimal-image which excludes the
>>>> ability to install further packages?
>> Marcin and I had a discussion about that, but I can't remember the
>> outcome. So "I have no strong opinions on that".
> 
> I think minimal was really intended for people trying to boot systems
> for the first time and really is 'the bare essentials to boot'. Having
> said that I appreciate the problem of creating an image cut down enough
> for the NSLU2. 
> 
> Ideally, MACHINE=nslu2 should make the console image become small enough
> to be usable for the device even if that different compared to the
> minimal image is just the package manager due to size constraints...
> 
> On a related but different note, the presence of a package manager or
> not sounds like an DISTRO_FEATURE. Perhaps we should add
> "package-manager" as a DISTRO_FEATURE and then use this to decide
> whether a package manager should be installed into an image. The package
> manager to install should determined by the class building the image so
> you end up with a package manager appropriate to the image - ipkg or
> dpkg+apt currently.

For angstrom it's an IMAGE_FEATURE, since some images need it (e.g.
console-image) and others don't (e.g. initramfs).
Right not you can set ANGSTROM_PKG_FORMAT to 'deb' or 'ipkg' to create
images using .ipk or .deb packages, with no rebuild needed, changing it
halfway during a build and restarting bitbake "Just Works(TM)". Any
changes to how a packagemanager is installed must keep that
'automagical' feature. The only thing missing in Rods patch is to set
the packagemanager var in
conf/distro/include/angstrom-package-{deb,ipkg}.inc.


regards,

Koen

- --
koen@dominion.kabel.utwente.nl will go go away in december 2007, please
use k.kooi@student.utwente.nl instead.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFHUrBTMkyGM64RGpERAgfWAJ41XtwMfcwzdUvVb7B8wlPgyzyl7ACeO3Ee
XzEKgGuHGPodrllIEg/eI7Y=
=9K0Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [Angstrom-devel] RFC: Add ipkg to minimal image

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Koen Kooi schreef:
> Richard Purdie schreef:
>> On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 09:17 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>> Rod Whitby schreef:
>>>> Rod Whitby wrote:
>>>>> I just realised that minimal-image.bb doesn't include ipkg, whereas the
>>>>> first image which does include ipkg (console-image) includes a whole lot
>>>>> of other stuff which could be installed using ipkg after first boot and
>>>>> network access, and which make the image too big for a machine with
>>>>> limited flash space (like an NSLU2).
>>>> RFC #1:
>>>>> Is there a reason why minimal-image does not include ipkg?  What exactly
>>>>> is the definition of what should be in minimal-image which excludes the
>>>>> ability to install further packages?
>>> Marcin and I had a discussion about that, but I can't remember the
>>> outcome. So "I have no strong opinions on that".
>> I think minimal was really intended for people trying to boot systems
>> for the first time and really is 'the bare essentials to boot'. Having
>> said that I appreciate the problem of creating an image cut down enough
>> for the NSLU2. 
> 
>> Ideally, MACHINE=nslu2 should make the console image become small enough
>> to be usable for the device even if that different compared to the
>> minimal image is just the package manager due to size constraints...
> 
>> On a related but different note, the presence of a package manager or
>> not sounds like an DISTRO_FEATURE. Perhaps we should add
>> "package-manager" as a DISTRO_FEATURE and then use this to decide
>> whether a package manager should be installed into an image. The package
>> manager to install should determined by the class building the image so
>> you end up with a package manager appropriate to the image - ipkg or
>> dpkg+apt currently.
> 
> For angstrom it's an IMAGE_FEATURE, since some images need it (e.g.
> console-image) and others don't (e.g. initramfs).
> Right not you can set ANGSTROM_PKG_FORMAT to 'deb' or 'ipkg' to create
> images using .ipk or .deb packages, with no rebuild needed, changing it
> halfway during a build and restarting bitbake "Just Works(TM)". Any
> changes to how a packagemanager is installed must keep that
> 'automagical' feature. The only thing missing in Rods patch is to set
> the packagemanager var in
> conf/distro/include/angstrom-package-{deb,ipkg}.inc.

To make it a bit more clear:

There are 3 seperate items being discusses here:

 1. how to stop a packagemanager getting into an image
 2. selecting which packageformat the build should use
 3. selecting which packagemanager handles which packageformat (ipkg can
handle .debs for example)

ANGSTROM_PKG_FORMAT handles 2. and 3., but not 1. (yet)

I think having a flag indicating *which* packagemanager gets is (like
Rods patch does) is a good thing, but a flag toggling the presence of
the packagemanager wouldn't be, since you can't distinguish the
resulting images from each other.
I think creating e.g. <foo>-nopm.bb recipes that do 'require <foo>.bb ;
PACKAGE_MANAGER = " "' would be the least confusing option.

I hope this clears things up a bit.

regards,

Koen



- --
koen@dominion.kabel.utwente.nl will go go away in december 2007, please
use k.kooi@student.utwente.nl instead.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFHUtDFMkyGM64RGpERAq9xAJ9XRjlHv8LPiLcdnARLUUBXCc2t2ACfXM03
R/javXrBLWmVDem0N/t7DT8=
=qnhS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [Angstrom-devel] RFC: Add ipkg to minimal image

[Richard Purdie]

On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 16:35 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> To make it a bit more clear:
> 
> There are 3 seperate items being discusses here:
> 
>  1. how to stop a packagemanager getting into an image
>  2. selecting which packageformat the build should use
>  3. selecting which packagemanager handles which packageformat (ipkg can
> handle .debs for example)

An image built with rootfs_deb needs to dpkg+apt, an image built with
rootfs_ipk needs to use ipkg. The two will not currently work the other
way around.

Until that is addressed, points 2 and 3 are the same thing.

> ANGSTROM_PKG_FORMAT handles 2. and 3., but not 1. (yet)

The setting of IMG_PKGTYPE used or the inherit order of the package
classes determine this. Do we need the angstrom specific variable?

> I think having a flag indicating *which* packagemanager gets is (like
> Rods patch does) is a good thing, but a flag toggling the presence of
> the packagemanager wouldn't be, since you can't distinguish the
> resulting images from each other.
> I think creating e.g. <foo>-nopm.bb recipes that do 'require <foo>.bb ;
> PACKAGE_MANAGER = " "' would be the least confusing option.

I agree that specific images should have specific feature sets. This
comes back to my point about the machine=nslu2 needing to make the
console image usable.

Has anyone looked at how Poky does its IMAGE_FEATURES magic (see
poky-image.bbclass)? Adding package-manager as an IMAGE_FEATURE style
option and not as a DISTRO_FEATURE as I previously suggested could
perhaps be a way forward...

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [Angstrom-devel] RFC: Add ipkg to minimal image

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Richard Purdie schreef:
> On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 16:35 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> To make it a bit more clear:
>>
>> There are 3 seperate items being discusses here:
>>
>>  1. how to stop a packagemanager getting into an image
>>  2. selecting which packageformat the build should use
>>  3. selecting which packagemanager handles which packageformat (ipkg can
>> handle .debs for example)
> 
> An image built with rootfs_deb needs to dpkg+apt, an image built with
> rootfs_ipk needs to use ipkg. The two will not currently work the other
> way around.

You can use rootfs_ipk to build a rootfs from .debs. ipkg only cares
about the files being an ar-wrapped-tarball, not the suffix. It requires
a small changes to the bbclass, but it is possible.

regards,

Koen

> Until that is addressed, points 2 and 3 are the same thing.
> 
>> ANGSTROM_PKG_FORMAT handles 2. and 3., but not 1. (yet)
> 
> The setting of IMG_PKGTYPE used or the inherit order of the package
> classes determine this. Do we need the angstrom specific variable?
> 
>> I think having a flag indicating *which* packagemanager gets is (like
>> Rods patch does) is a good thing, but a flag toggling the presence of
>> the packagemanager wouldn't be, since you can't distinguish the
>> resulting images from each other.
>> I think creating e.g. <foo>-nopm.bb recipes that do 'require <foo>.bb ;
>> PACKAGE_MANAGER = " "' would be the least confusing option.
> 
> I agree that specific images should have specific feature sets. This
> comes back to my point about the machine=nslu2 needing to make the
> console image usable.
> 
> Has anyone looked at how Poky does its IMAGE_FEATURES magic (see
> poky-image.bbclass)? Adding package-manager as an IMAGE_FEATURE style
> option and not as a DISTRO_FEATURE as I previously suggested could
> perhaps be a way forward...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list
> Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel
> 


- --
koen@dominion.kabel.utwente.nl will go go away in december 2007, please
use k.kooi@student.utwente.nl instead.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFHUwPNMkyGM64RGpERArb0AJ49JilRuw6f/Tj2VZ0VAJ5K52XWMACfdqKe
glVjhPyQNEeBOPy7MjHFDIM=
=r8/t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [Angstrom-devel] RFC: Add ipkg to minimal image

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

Dnia niedziela, 2 grudnia 2007, Richard Purdie napisał:
> On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 09:17 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> > Rod Whitby schreef:

> > > RFC #1:
> > >> Is there a reason why minimal-image does not include ipkg?  What
> > >> exactly is the definition of what should be in minimal-image which
> > >> excludes the ability to install further packages?
> >
> > Marcin and I had a discussion about that, but I can't remember the
> > outcome. So "I have no strong opinions on that".
>
> I think minimal was really intended for people trying to boot systems
> for the first time and really is 'the bare essentials to boot'. Having
> said that I appreciate the problem of creating an image cut down enough
> for the NSLU2.

minimal-image was meant as something really small which can be used to 
just boot device into something usable. For different machines 'usable' 
has different meaning and this should be covered by task-boot or 
MACHINE_ESSENTIAL_ variables. 

Zaurus palmtops are usable with just busybox + keymaps, for devboards it 
usually mean busybox (getty on serial port is automatically started), for 
nslu2 it means Ethernet + ssh/telnet daemon.

I see no problem with creating 'minimal-with-ipkg' image under better 
name. Let 'minimal-image' be really minimal - example usage is devboard 
with problems with NAND accessing and MMC card - all what is available is 
u-boot with ethernet so booting over tftp with kernel and initrd (or 
kernel with initramfs) makes it working.

> Ideally, MACHINE=nslu2 should make the console image become small
> enough to be usable for the device even if that different compared to
> the minimal image is just the package manager due to size
> constraints...

NSLU2 is example of device which can do really many things but rootfs 
space is limited. When it comes to Ångström defaults it means bt, wifi, 
usb host so 'task-base' starts to depend on too many stuff to be usable 
with internal flash. This device really needs special image for internal 
rootfs space.

> On a related but different note, the presence of a package manager or
> not sounds like an DISTRO_FEATURE. Perhaps we should add
> "package-manager" as a DISTRO_FEATURE and then use this to decide
> whether a package manager should be installed into an image. The
> package manager to install should determined by the class building the
> image so you end up with a package manager appropriate to the image -
> ipkg or dpkg+apt currently.

This sounds good - no use for package manager on systems which are 
upgraded only by reflashing (due to many reasons).

-- 
JID: hrw-jabber.org
OpenEmbedded developer/consultant

           Q:      What's a light-year?
           A:      One-third less calories than a regular year.

Re: [Angstrom-devel] RFC: Add ipkg to minimal image

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello Rod,

Sunday, December 2, 2007, 3:18:51 AM, you wrote:

> I just realised that minimal-image.bb doesn't include ipkg, whereas the
> first image which does include ipkg (console-image) includes a whole lot
> of other stuff which could be installed using ipkg after first boot and
> network access, and which make the image too big for a machine with
> limited flash space (like an NSLU2).

> Is there a reason why minimal-image does not include ipkg?  What exactly
> is the definition of what should be in minimal-image which excludes the
> ability to install further packages?

  minimal-image is apparently something that 1) can boot, hence
task-boot, and 2) show signs of life (in no-nonsence and secure
manner), hence ${DISTRO_SSH_DAEMON}.

> Does anyone object to me adding ipkg support to minimal-image?

  While your work on getting useful small Angstrom images are of
course great, I think definition of minimal image as above as perfect
as it can get, so it would be better to create separate image. That
would lead to proliferation, as we already have
minimal-image-with-mtd-utils, but well, forking stuff for copies to
undergo evolution is apparently better than hacking axiom for each
occasion. Just my 2 cents.

> FYI, minimal-image.rootfs.jffs2 for ixp4xx is 3.8M whereas
> console-image.rootfs.jffs2 for ixp4xx is 7.1M

> -- Rod


-- 
Best regards,
 Paul                            mailto:pmiscml@gmail.com

Re: [Angstrom-devel] RFC: Add ipkg to minimal image

[Rod Whitby]

Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>   While your work on getting useful small Angstrom images are of
> course great, I think definition of minimal image as above as perfect
> as it can get, so it would be better to create separate image. That
> would lead to proliferation, as we already have
> minimal-image-with-mtd-utils, but well, forking stuff for copies to
> undergo evolution is apparently better than hacking axiom for each
> occasion. Just my 2 cents.

That's why I'm asking.  The axiom is not documented anywhere
(there should be a comment at the top of each image file saying
what the definition and intent of the image is), so one has to
first determine whether a fork is required, or whether the changes
fit in the definition of the intent of the image.

By the conflicting replies here, it is clear that the intent of
minimal-image.bb is not well defined.  Who is the maintainer of
that image, and could that person please document the intent at
the top of the minimal-image.bb file?

I do agree with those who need a *really* minimal image, and I
poked CoreDump to free up the essential-image.bb namespace as a
candidate for the name of that type of image, in case the
not-really-that-minimal definition of minimal-image prevails.

-- Rod

Re: [Angstrom-devel] RFC: Add ipkg to minimal image

[Leon Woestenberg]

Hello World,

On Dec 2, 2007 9:52 PM, Rod Whitby <rod@whitby.id.au> wrote:
> Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> >   While your work on getting useful small Angstrom images are of
> > course great, I think definition of minimal image as above as perfect
> > as it can get, so it would be better to create separate image. That
> > ...
> That's why I'm asking.  The axiom is not documented anywhere
> (there should be a comment at the top of each image file saying
> what the definition and intent of the image is), so one has to
> ...
Good idea.

There is also helloworld-image, which I created to show a minimal
Linux "system" consisting of kernel + "helloworld" application running
as init./

For minimal, it depends on the MACHINE I would say, but the naming
"minimal" is wrong. Minimal in what way?
A machine which has a console should not need an SSH server in minimal image.

It would be wiser to indicate purpose ("console") instead of size ("minimal").

Maybe "headless" is a better name, for an image that has no input
method, whereas "console" means "console-shell-access".

Regards,
-- 
Leon

Re: [Angstrom-devel] RFC: Add ipkg to minimal image

[Rod Whitby]

Leon Woestenberg wrote:
> There is also helloworld-image, which I created to show a minimal
> Linux "system" consisting of kernel + "helloworld" application running
> as init./
> 
> For minimal, it depends on the MACHINE I would say, but the naming
> "minimal" is wrong. Minimal in what way?
> A machine which has a console should not need an SSH server in minimal image.
> 
> It would be wiser to indicate purpose ("console") instead of size ("minimal").
> 
> Maybe "headless" is a better name, for an image that has no input
> method, whereas "console" means "console-shell-access".

+1 from me.

-- Rod