From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f175.google.com (mail-io0-f175.google.com [209.85.223.175]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B531577D49 for ; Wed, 17 May 2017 10:47:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f175.google.com with SMTP id f102so6558996ioi.2 for ; Wed, 17 May 2017 03:47:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vDcrffjwTwV2KYAQDMKR3dWwnH8pBmM9XGPgMMZ3oKo=; b=VE3adJOrkshYmH6/DBAwh3f7+vjF8euB0W5jhtlW7kXztmAA9O0QLsb8Iy6AKP4QwV GY706fwmkXGp3TRJgyg4ik8dwDowSafnI6GmDoSfEgI/MZcdkV9Hyh/141ursKtEgUf9 wqcfAQR8V7yTZjfu9c240AqiZ7oPgID2ceWKT+gvSsqtpmV/tCqoxzzzj97zYNNivplZ EFr/aPuI1xZ7C7ZE1UIbelZSXMzlKgw3U8iiz0jSNstwVjI76fH8P+wSbI5nwYWHMeI0 quzuerq2U6IA30QAOVa1qId3H7tH8fgh6L+IaRrw7X7HinFo450+UrMa4rhShOhSbUZU R0hg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vDcrffjwTwV2KYAQDMKR3dWwnH8pBmM9XGPgMMZ3oKo=; b=prveL6hZX/igsmeXegkwXAZ+PfjfD+4UkWrsG257pLLswfZY6w0KRlHsfb7ZbPrTRo WrJDl5jN08hZ8Te/pd7zca+kBfffyXiM3ysyGLF1DrklzVciJDGlZNsPle8m0/MFW+Ha 9VHtPqpMkagdCfCz39fkNNzQe9AYYV5nk5tqNYUW0SCMFWxs9GHrrkjjek97r2JXquNA 884pHfSjGR/7GQezATWcQuiqHYI3yYMznf2R/YE4pEab+MgynwsPH1c1w7o1A93/Hp7U PXt8TF5jxtj54/L0ZlDqhgnTwqBzepINwwV/hgjarrhK2lxSkAfn6oC04mYsKHkW31n1 fDxQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDOUWNEm1fsrSXF+Y/ovwLA5luPxeBAD83w82wj28G5NvMLtPGH stOTl8IFcYOMWGTu X-Received: by 10.107.180.130 with SMTP id d124mr2332110iof.47.1495018028249; Wed, 17 May 2017 03:47:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8F2FD.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.242.253]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y7sm7403750itc.27.2017.05.17.03.47.05 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 17 May 2017 03:47:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1495018023.28624.38.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Alexander Kanavin Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 12:47:03 +0200 In-Reply-To: <6d634eb4-a0e6-7f56-0d6e-b1324eece035@linux.intel.com> References: <8810a4bbb1c67b438a7320df810db02099fcb5a0.1495007905.git-series.patrick.ohly@intel.com> <6d634eb4-a0e6-7f56-0d6e-b1324eece035@linux.intel.com> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] image-mode.bbclass: common infrastructure for choosing image defaults X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 10:47:08 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 12:49 +0300, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > On 05/17/2017 10:58 AM, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > A distro might want to offer developers different, pre-defined ways of > > building an image, for example a "development" mode with easy (but > > insecure) login methods and a "production" mode with hardened > > settings. > > Apologies Patrick, I still think this brings more complication than > benefits. And it's not even showcased anywhere in poky: you add the > variable, but don't take it into use anywhere. Which means it also won't > get tested. > > You can do this thing by creating separate image recipes, each with > their hand picked IMAGE_FEATURES. And that includes showing appropriate > motd as well - but that perhaps would not be necessary because the image > mode would be encoded in its file name. Can you be specific? Which image recipes should I add? The feature by design is now meant to be used by distros. OE-core doesn't contain a distro definition, so the feature cannot really be used in OE-core in a realistic, reusable way. I can write a selftest with a custom distro or image configuration, if that addresses your concern about not getting the code tested. I know that you prefer defining more image recipes over allowing the reconfiguration of the same image recipe. I disagree on that, because when you have independent aspects (like content and login configuration), then you end up with various combinations of those configuration options. Writing down all combinations in pre-defined image recipes just doesn't scale. But you are welcome to proof me wrong by showing how the existing image recipes in OE-core should be changed so that they not only cover different content selection, but also what's currently done via EXTRA_IMAGE_FEATURES in local.conf.sample. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.