[PATCH 0/3] Dynamic common utilities

[PATCH 0/3] Dynamic common utilities

[Alejandro Joya]

It provide a virtual reference for the common utilities.
it replace of the lock to busybox, it will be simple exchange between other
common utilities like gnu core utils or toybox among others.

In order to enable its required to fill at the distro conf or local.conf

VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_login_manager ?= "busybox"
PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/anybox ?= "busybox"
PREFERRED_RPROVIDER_virtual/anybox ?= "busybox"
VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_anybox ?= "busybox"
VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_anybox-hwclock ?= "busybox-hwclock"

The following changes since commit f0189829498e30231d826c9f55aad73e622d076e:

  qemu: Update to upstream patches (2015-09-14 11:22:02 +0100)

are available in the git repository at:

  git://github.com/Ajoyacr/openembedded-core anybox
  https://github.com/Ajoyacr/openembedded-core/tree/anybox

Alejandro Joya (3):
  core-mage-minimal-initramfs: overwrite hardcoded dependency to virtual
    reference
  initramfs-framework: overwrite hardcoded dependency to virtual
    reference
  packagegroup-core-boot: overwrite hardcoded dependency to virtual
    reference

 meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb   | 2 +-
 meta/recipes-core/initrdscripts/initramfs-framework_1.0.bb | 2 +-
 meta/recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-boot.bb  | 6 +++---
 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

-- 
2.1.0

[PATCH 1/3] core-mage-minimal-initramfs: overwrite hardcoded dependency to virtual reference

[Alejandro Joya]

This recipe have a hardcoded dependency to busybox, in order to be able to have a flexible selection,
instead of the hardcoded dependency,now is point to virtual reference anybox.

Signed-off-by: Alejandro Joya <alejandro.joya.cruz@intel.com>
---
 meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
index 1f0fa95..e2936ee 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ DESCRIPTION = "Small image capable of booting a device. The kernel includes \
 the Minimal RAM-based Initial Root Filesystem (initramfs), which finds the \
 first 'init' program more efficiently."
 
-PACKAGE_INSTALL = "initramfs-live-boot initramfs-live-install initramfs-live-install-efi busybox udev base-passwd ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
+PACKAGE_INSTALL = "initramfs-live-boot initramfs-live-install initramfs-live-install-efi virtual/anybox udev base-passwd ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
 
 # Do not pollute the initrd image with rootfs features
 IMAGE_FEATURES = ""
-- 
2.1.0

[PATCH 2/3] initramfs-framework: overwrite hardcoded dependency to virtual reference

[Alejandro Joya]

This recipe have a hardcoded dependency to busybox, in order to be able to have a flexible selection,
instead of the hardcoded dependency,now is point to virtual reference anybox.

Signed-off-by: Alejandro Joya <alejandro.joya.cruz@intel.com>
---
 meta/recipes-core/initrdscripts/initramfs-framework_1.0.bb | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/initrdscripts/initramfs-framework_1.0.bb b/meta/recipes-core/initrdscripts/initramfs-framework_1.0.bb
index 6c37b9a..0704cb1 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-core/initrdscripts/initramfs-framework_1.0.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/initrdscripts/initramfs-framework_1.0.bb
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 SUMMARY = "Modular initramfs system"
 LICENSE = "MIT"
 LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://${COREBASE}/meta/COPYING.MIT;md5=3da9cfbcb788c80a0384361b4de20420"
-RDEPENDS_${PN} += "busybox"
+RDEPENDS_${PN} += "virtual/anybox"
 
 PR = "r2"
 
-- 
2.1.0

[PATCH 3/3] packagegroup-core-boot: overwrite hardcoded dependency to virtual reference

[Alejandro Joya]

This recipe have a hardcoded dependency to busybox, in order to be able to have a flexible selection,
instead of the hardcoded dependency,now is point to virtual reference anybox.

Signed-off-by: Alejandro Joya <alejandro.joya.cruz@intel.com>
---
 meta/recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-boot.bb | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-boot.bb b/meta/recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-boot.bb
index 09f5373..355631f 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-boot.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-boot.bb
@@ -19,12 +19,12 @@ MACHINE_ESSENTIAL_EXTRA_RRECOMMENDS ?= ""
 
 # Distro can override the following VIRTUAL-RUNTIME providers:
 VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_dev_manager ?= "udev"
-VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_login_manager ?= "busybox"
+VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_login_manager ?= "${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_anybox}"
 VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_init_manager ?= "sysvinit"
 VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_initscripts ?= "initscripts"
 VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_keymaps ?= "keymaps"
 
-SYSVINIT_SCRIPTS = "${@bb.utils.contains('MACHINE_FEATURES', 'rtc', 'busybox-hwclock', '', d)} \
+SYSVINIT_SCRIPTS = "${@bb.utils.contains('MACHINE_FEATURES', 'rtc', '${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_anybox-hwclock}', '', d)} \
                     modutils-initscripts \
                     init-ifupdown \
                     ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_initscripts} \
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ SYSVINIT_SCRIPTS = "${@bb.utils.contains('MACHINE_FEATURES', 'rtc', 'busybox-hwc
 RDEPENDS_${PN} = "\
     base-files \
     base-passwd \
-    busybox \
+    ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_anybox} \
     ${@bb.utils.contains("DISTRO_FEATURES", "sysvinit", "${SYSVINIT_SCRIPTS}", "", d)} \
     ${@bb.utils.contains("MACHINE_FEATURES", "keyboard", "${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_keymaps}", "", d)} \
     netbase \
-- 
2.1.0

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Dynamic common utilities

[Jack Mitchell]

On 17/09/15 17:20, Alejandro Joya wrote:
> It provide a virtual reference for the common utilities.
> it replace of the lock to busybox, it will be simple exchange between other
> common utilities like gnu core utils or toybox among others.
>
> In order to enable its required to fill at the distro conf or local.conf
>
> VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_login_manager ?= "busybox"
> PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/anybox ?= "busybox"
> PREFERRED_RPROVIDER_virtual/anybox ?= "busybox"
> VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_anybox ?= "busybox"
> VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_anybox-hwclock ?= "busybox-hwclock"
>
> The following changes since commit f0189829498e30231d826c9f55aad73e622d076e:
>
>    qemu: Update to upstream patches (2015-09-14 11:22:02 +0100)
>
> are available in the git repository at:
>
>    git://github.com/Ajoyacr/openembedded-core anybox
>    https://github.com/Ajoyacr/openembedded-core/tree/anybox
>
> Alejandro Joya (3):
>    core-mage-minimal-initramfs: overwrite hardcoded dependency to virtual
>      reference
>    initramfs-framework: overwrite hardcoded dependency to virtual
>      reference
>    packagegroup-core-boot: overwrite hardcoded dependency to virtual
>      reference
>
>   meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb   | 2 +-
>   meta/recipes-core/initrdscripts/initramfs-framework_1.0.bb | 2 +-
>   meta/recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-boot.bb  | 6 +++---
>   3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>

is 'anybox' a good name for the virtual provider? What happens if we have a new 
suite of core utility replacements without box in the name, I assume it will be 
a nightmare to retroactivly change the name so we should probably come up with a 
more generic one now. virtual/core-utils, virtual/base-utils?

Cheers,
Jack.

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Dynamic common utilities

[Khem Raj]

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 2:35 AM, Jack Mitchell <ml@communistcode.co.uk> wrote:
> is 'anybox' a good name for the virtual provider? What happens if we have a
> new suite of core utility replacements without box in the name, I assume it
> will be a nightmare to retroactivly change the name so we should probably
> come up with a more generic one now. virtual/core-utils, virtual/base-utils?

I think thats a fair point. I think virtual/busybox could be another
option but it might confuse some people seeing the word busybox
virtual/core-utilities will make it sufficiently not confuse with coreutils.

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Dynamic common utilities

[Mark Hatle]

On 9/18/15 4:35 AM, Jack Mitchell wrote:
> On 17/09/15 17:20, Alejandro Joya wrote:
>> It provide a virtual reference for the common utilities.
>> it replace of the lock to busybox, it will be simple exchange between other
>> common utilities like gnu core utils or toybox among others.
>>
>> In order to enable its required to fill at the distro conf or local.conf
>>
>> VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_login_manager ?= "busybox"
>> PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/anybox ?= "busybox"
>> PREFERRED_RPROVIDER_virtual/anybox ?= "busybox"
>> VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_anybox ?= "busybox"
>> VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_anybox-hwclock ?= "busybox-hwclock"
>>
>> The following changes since commit f0189829498e30231d826c9f55aad73e622d076e:
>>
>>    qemu: Update to upstream patches (2015-09-14 11:22:02 +0100)
>>
>> are available in the git repository at:
>>
>>    git://github.com/Ajoyacr/openembedded-core anybox
>>    https://github.com/Ajoyacr/openembedded-core/tree/anybox
>>
>> Alejandro Joya (3):
>>    core-mage-minimal-initramfs: overwrite hardcoded dependency to virtual
>>      reference
>>    initramfs-framework: overwrite hardcoded dependency to virtual
>>      reference
>>    packagegroup-core-boot: overwrite hardcoded dependency to virtual
>>      reference
>>
>>   meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb   | 2 +-
>>   meta/recipes-core/initrdscripts/initramfs-framework_1.0.bb | 2 +-
>>   meta/recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-boot.bb  | 6 +++---
>>   3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
> 
> is 'anybox' a good name for the virtual provider? What happens if we have a new 
> suite of core utility replacements without box in the name, I assume it will be 
> a nightmare to retroactivly change the name so we should probably come up with a 
> more generic one now. virtual/core-utils, virtual/base-utils?

Personally I like this better -- however, I think we're "too late" in the
current development cycle to do it..  but for the next cycle, we should
certainly consider going through the system and doing this instead.

(It will definitely make it easier in the future to get rid of a "box" based
system if desired.)

--Mark

> Cheers,
> Jack.
> 

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Dynamic common utilities

[Otavio Salvador]

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com> wrote:
> On 9/18/15 4:35 AM, Jack Mitchell wrote:
>> On 17/09/15 17:20, Alejandro Joya wrote:
>>> It provide a virtual reference for the common utilities.
>>> it replace of the lock to busybox, it will be simple exchange between other
>>> common utilities like gnu core utils or toybox among others.
>>>
>>> In order to enable its required to fill at the distro conf or local.conf
>>>
>>> VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_login_manager ?= "busybox"
>>> PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/anybox ?= "busybox"
>>> PREFERRED_RPROVIDER_virtual/anybox ?= "busybox"
>>> VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_anybox ?= "busybox"
>>> VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_anybox-hwclock ?= "busybox-hwclock"
>>>
>>> The following changes since commit f0189829498e30231d826c9f55aad73e622d076e:
>>>
>>>    qemu: Update to upstream patches (2015-09-14 11:22:02 +0100)
>>>
>>> are available in the git repository at:
>>>
>>>    git://github.com/Ajoyacr/openembedded-core anybox
>>>    https://github.com/Ajoyacr/openembedded-core/tree/anybox
>>>
>>> Alejandro Joya (3):
>>>    core-mage-minimal-initramfs: overwrite hardcoded dependency to virtual
>>>      reference
>>>    initramfs-framework: overwrite hardcoded dependency to virtual
>>>      reference
>>>    packagegroup-core-boot: overwrite hardcoded dependency to virtual
>>>      reference
>>>
>>>   meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb   | 2 +-
>>>   meta/recipes-core/initrdscripts/initramfs-framework_1.0.bb | 2 +-
>>>   meta/recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-boot.bb  | 6 +++---
>>>   3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> is 'anybox' a good name for the virtual provider? What happens if we have a new
>> suite of core utility replacements without box in the name, I assume it will be
>> a nightmare to retroactivly change the name so we should probably come up with a
>> more generic one now. virtual/core-utils, virtual/base-utils?
>
> Personally I like this better -- however, I think we're "too late" in the
> current development cycle to do it..  but for the next cycle, we should
> certainly consider going through the system and doing this instead.
>
> (It will definitely make it easier in the future to get rid of a "box" based
> system if desired.)

Agreed; this should be postponed for 2.1 and than we come up with a
proper virtual name when revisiting this patchset.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750