From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.windriver.com (mail1.windriver.com [147.11.146.13]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7637672BA2 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 12:06:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca.corp.ad.wrs.com [147.11.189.40]) by mail1.windriver.com (8.14.9/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t08C6Rrb029823 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 8 Jan 2015 04:06:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from [128.224.162.194] (128.224.162.194) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.174.1; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 04:06:27 -0800 Message-ID: <54AE72B7.1020803@windriver.com> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 20:06:15 +0800 From: Hongxu Jia User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Otavio Salvador References: <1420674899.25779.79.camel@linuxfoundation.org> <54ADEB14.9060004@windriver.com> In-Reply-To: Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] add variable INSTALL_ALL to install all packages in recipes 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: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 12:06:36 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 01/08/2015 07:55 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Hongxu Jia 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 >