Re: [PATCH 0/4] add variable INSTALL_ALL to install all packages in recipes

[Hongxu Jia <hongxu.jia@windriver.com>]

On 01/08/2015 07:55 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Hongxu Jia <hongxu.jia@windriver.com> wrote:
>> On 01/08/2015 07:54 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> This tells me what the change does. What it doesn't say is why we need
>>> this?
>>>
>>> Its a fairly invasive set of changes but I don't see the usecase...
>>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> I am sorry not to say it clearly,
>>
>> 1) We have been asked many times on how to install all the PACKAGES
>>     of a recipe, we can only list them one by one in the RDPENDS (or
>>     IMAGE_INSTALL and so on) currently, especially like dynamic generated
>>     packages (perl-modules, kernel-modules) which depends on many other
>>     packages, it is not easy to remember these package names for customer.
>>     It is helpful for user who does not take care the details that how many
>>     packages generated in a recipe, just want to directly install all of
>> them.
>>
>> 2) Providing a mechanism to install all the PACKAGES of a recipe is helpful
>>     to test all generated packages of a recipe could work, such as the defect
>>     of '[PATCH 3/4]' was found by installing all packages of python3.
>>
>> 3) The fix is based on the usage of IMAGE_INSTALL, so it doesn't affect the
>>     users who do not want to use this feature (We disable it by default).
> For me, it seems those should have a meta package, not a new install
> variable fo this.

What meta package means? I am sorry I don't quite follow it.

//Hongxu


>