Re: Proposal: Creating meta-networking

[Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>]

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

On 6/15/2012 8:15 AM, Joe MacDonald wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> We've been talking about this on-and-off at Wind River for a while
> now, but it now seems like a reasonable time to bring a proposal to
> the OE community at large.  We're thinking about creating a new
> layer to house recipes, etc.  for networking packages.  I'll try to
> address what seem to be the most immediate questions (certainly the
> ones we've been thinking most about any time I've discussed this
> with anyone):
> 
> Who would use this?
> 
> The intent is that this would be a layer generally useful directly
> on top of the Yocto Project / OE-core, but it would also draw from
> and compliment meta-oe.  Right now I'm imagining two main groups
> interested in this layer.
> 
> - Anyone building a small networking device (eg. a home router / 
> bridge / switch).
> 
> - Anyone wanting to add network services to their device (eg. 
> anything that might benefit from a small ftp/tftp server)
> 
> What will it include?
> 
> The focus should be on networking protocols, daemons, servers and
> utilities. The plan is for a staged approach.  Initially we're
> going to bring forward a number of recipes from OE Classic that
> aren't currently in OE-core or the meta-oe layer.  The short list
> right now is:
> 
> - aoetools - openldap - quagga - radvd - tftp-hpa - traceroute -
> tunctl - vblade - vlan - xl2tpd
> 
> The next two stages would run concurrently, with Wind River 
> contributing a number of recipes we intend to support for the 
> long-term.  That list is still being firmed up but will include:
> 
> - freeradius - netcat - racoon2 - rdist
> 
> There's about another six or seven packages on the short list
> right now, generally in the same vein.
> 
> The other stage is migrating packages that seem like obvious fits
> into this layer from meta-oe.  The current list under consideration
> would be:
> 
> - atftp - bridge-utils - dnsmasq - dnsmasq-dbus - inetutils -
> ipsec-tools - iw - libnet - libnfnetlink - net-snmp - ntp -
> ntp-ssl - openvpn - ptpd - rp-pppoe - samba - strongswan - talloc -
> tcpdump - vsftpd
> 
> That's a lot of stuff, are you going to organize it somehow?
> 
> The plan is that we will have subdirectories for logical groups of 
> recipes in much the same way meta-oe is organized today.  Groupings
> I would propose right now would be:
> 
> - recipes-daemons - containing stuff like atftp, dnsmasq, racoon2,
> radvd, etc. - recipes-protocols - containing stuff like quagga,
> openldap, xl2tpd, maybe iscsi if it appears, etc. -
> recipes-support - containing the rest, aoetools, bridge-utils,
> traceroute, etc.
> 
> This is definitely the least-clear part of our plan so far and
> would need the most feedback and fine-tuning, I expect.
> 
> Why move anything from meta-oe?
> 
> "Networking" covers such a broad area and touches so much that it 
> really seems like 'meta-networking' should be a home for all of
> the embedded networking bits.  Leaving some parts in meta-oe and
> having the rest in meta-networking would ultimately seem a bit
> arbitrary.
> 
> Who is 'we'?
> 
> Wind River is volunteering to maintain the layer and any recipes
> we contribute at the outset.  For recipes imported from OE Classic
> it'd be great if the maintainers there continued ownership, but if
> that's not possible, WR will also sign up for general maintenance.
> For recipes imported from meta-oe we would hope that the current
> maintainers would continue support in meta-networking once it's
> created.  WR definitely won't be able to do this alone so we're
> hoping for help from everyone here.
> 
> When are you doing this?
> 
> I've been working on a prototype on and off for the last little bit
> but considering the scope and potential impact, it seemed best to
> open up the discussion here first and if it seemed like a generally
> desirable thing, we'd get some version of this up and available
> within a few days of consensus.
> 
> So what does everyone think?  Awesome idea?  Terrible idea?
> (Hopefully) something in between?  All feedback is welcome.
> 

I think creating a networking layer is fine idea, alongside meta-oe,
as a separate layer in meta-openembedded repo. Reshuffling recipes
from meta-oe into different layers is fine. I would like to avoid copies.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk/bV9sACgkQuwUzVZGdMxSaVgCeJN3phaSkPA18pJkb4mtjq2i5
BzQAnRK05weQOYDQxFc9ZqWz04MUrqB6
=8Cdm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----