Change ANGSTROM_EXTRA_INSTALL to IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL

Change ANGSTROM_EXTRA_INSTALL to IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL

[Philip Balister]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 313 bytes --]

I'd like to change the variable used for the user to add packages to a 
standard image from ANGSTROM_EXTRA_INSTALL to IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL. This 
is an image property, and not Angstrom specific.

Is there anything wrong with this idea?

Philip

PS: I'd also like to add this to minimal image, objections?

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3303 bytes --]

Re: Change ANGSTROM_EXTRA_INSTALL to IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL

[Leon Woestenberg]

Hello Philip,

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Philip Balister <philip@balister.org> wrote:
> I'd like to change the variable used for the user to add packages to a
> standard image from ANGSTROM_EXTRA_INSTALL to IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL. This is
> an image property, and not Angstrom specific.
>
> Is there anything wrong with this idea?
>
No, except I guess you ask the Angstrom guys'n'gals as well?

Regards,
-- 
Leon

Re: Change ANGSTROM_EXTRA_INSTALL to IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL

[Koen Kooi]

Philip Balister wrote:
> I'd like to change the variable used for the user to add packages to a
> standard image from ANGSTROM_EXTRA_INSTALL to IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL. This
> is an image property, and not Angstrom specific.
>
> Is there anything wrong with this idea?

Yes, since it is intended to put angstrom specific stuff inside the 
image. It is there because it got fed up receiving hate-mail everytime I 
edited an image recipe. Since we seem to have a couple of resident 
angstrom-haters nowadays, I vote for leaving it as-is.

>
> Philip
>
> PS: I'd also like to add this to minimal image, objections?
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

Re: Change ANGSTROM_EXTRA_INSTALL to IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL

[Leon Woestenberg]

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
> Philip Balister wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to change the variable used for the user to add packages to a
>> standard image from ANGSTROM_EXTRA_INSTALL to IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL. This
>> is an image property, and not Angstrom specific.
>>
>> Is there anything wrong with this idea?
>
> Yes, since it is intended to put angstrom specific stuff inside the image.
>
Philip proposes to change its naming so that it is intended to put
distro specific stuff inside the image.

Angstrom being a distro, this is the neatest solution for both
OpenEmbedded and Angstrom.

> It is there because it got fed up receiving hate-mail everytime I edited an
> image recipe. Since we seem to have a couple of resident angstrom-haters
> nowadays, I vote for leaving it as-is.
>
The feature of putting some distro dependent stuff in the image
remains, so renaming this should not increase the amount of hate-mail
for anyone.

+1 from me.

Regards,
-- 
Leon

Re: Change ANGSTROM_EXTRA_INSTALL to IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

Dnia Friday, 9 of May 2008, Koen Kooi napisał:
> Philip Balister wrote:
> > I'd like to change the variable used for the user to add packages to
> > a standard image from ANGSTROM_EXTRA_INSTALL to IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL.
> > This is an image property, and not Angstrom specific.
> >
> > Is there anything wrong with this idea?
>
> Yes, since it is intended to put angstrom specific stuff inside the
> image. 

If you want to have own images - create them. Otherwise we have people 
which builds random images and can not be supported (why does 
my 'minimal-image' does not have working touchscreen when I start Abiword 
from icon after booting to full X.org with E17?).

> It is there because it got fed up receiving hate-mail everytime 
> I edited an image recipe. Since we seem to have a couple of resident
> angstrom-haters nowadays, I vote for leaving it as-is.

I vote against IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL. Let it live as ugly Angstrom hack for 
breaking sane images into unsupportable ones.

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

     If you can't learn to do it well, learn to enjoy doing it badly.
     		-- Ashleigh Brilliant

Re: Change ANGSTROM_EXTRA_INSTALL to IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL

[Rolf Leggewie]

Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
> I vote against IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL. Let it live as ugly Angstrom hack for 
> breaking sane images into unsupportable ones.

How would the correct way to do this look like?

I regularly want to include package X for testing it out.  I don't want
to create a new image definition every time.

Re: Change ANGSTROM_EXTRA_INSTALL to IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

Dnia Tuesday, 13 of May 2008, Rolf Leggewie napisał:
> Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
> > I vote against IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL. Let it live as ugly Angstrom hack
> > for breaking sane images into unsupportable ones.
>
> How would the correct way to do this look like?
>
> I regularly want to include package X for testing it out.  I don't want
> to create a new image definition every time.

Create rolf-test-image.bb which will do anything you want and also will 
have:

IMAGE_INSTALL += "${ROLF_EXTRA_IMAGE_INSTALL}"

This way you have own image which contain anything you want and is based 
on anything you want. And it is clearly your image so you are the only 
one who supports it.

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

      I'm trying to decide if I should kill you or simply feign death
      until you feel awkward and leave.

Re: Change ANGSTROM_EXTRA_INSTALL to IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL

[Rolf Leggewie]

Philip Balister wrote:
> I'd like to change the variable used for the user to add packages to a
> standard image from ANGSTROM_EXTRA_INSTALL to IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL. This
> is an image property, and not Angstrom specific.
> 
> Is there anything wrong with this idea?

IMHO this is a good idea in the spirit of keeping a clear boundary
between OE and the distros derived from it.  In an ideal world "rgrep
ANGSTROM packages/" would be empty and any functionality implemented
available to any distro via generic "stubs"/variables to dock into.

+1 from me

I guess, now is a good time though, to give a big round of applause and
thank you to the Angstrom folks (koen in particular) who have brought a
great many things to OE (I can think of multi-machine, support for lots
of machines, ANGSTROM_MODE and ANGSTROM_EXTRA_INSTALL right now, but
there are countless others)