> -----Original Message----- > From: Dmytriyenko, Denys > Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 2:52 PM > To: Cooper Jr., Franklin > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [meta-arago] [PATCH 1/2] tisdk-rootfs-base-image: Rename base > file system image > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:34:44AM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:53:54AM -0400, Cooper Jr., Franklin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > What was the initial reason to start naming rootfs > > > > > > > > > > images with > > > > > > > > > > tisdk-rootfs- prefix? I remember it was something > > > > > > > > > > forced by the SDK > > > > > > setup... > > > > > > > > > [Franklin] > > > > > > > > > This was before my time so I am not sure what the > > > > > > > > > original reasoning > > > > was. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do assume there might be instances where some script > > > > > > > > > somewhere will need to be updated if it refers to the > > > > > > > > > full image as > > > > "tisdk-rootfs*" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, I located the change I was talking about: > > > > > > > > http://arago-project.org/git/?p=meta- > > > > > > > > > > > > > arago.git;a=commitdiff;h=91f2be34e301deebbc75c54bbad6a5a27e25bf2 > > > > > > > > c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The "tisdk-image class had issues" is a rather vague > > > > > > > > description, so I'm not sure or don't remember what was > > > > > > > > the problem that you had to rename the original > > > > > > > > arago-tisdk-image into > > > > tisdk-rootfs-image... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Franklin] Ah I remember. The TARGET_IMAGES variable is used > > > > > > > in two ways in that class. 1 to add a build dependency and 2 > > > > > > > to reference the image tarball. So the assumption was that > > > > > > > the recipe/package name was the same as the IMAGE_BASENAME. > > > > > > > So the recipe and IMAGE_BASENAME > > > > > > must > > > > > > > match. Otherwise the image would be built but the class > > > > > > > wouldn't know what tarball to look for. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, OK, this is not exactly what I was looking for. Tracing > > > > > > even further back shows that you added the recipe to have > > > > > > IMAGE_BASENAME = > > > > "tisdk-rootfs": > > > > > > > > > > > > http://arago-project.org/git/?p=meta- > > > > > > arago.git;a=commitdiff;h=f27b1f34aee2c2cbee25a0fb5b21cdb04f16e > > > > > > c4a > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you remember the reason for that? This image recipe was in > > > > > > Classic arago, but there it had the basename matching the > > > > > > recipe name. Wondering why the change? > > > > > > > > > [Franklin] I think I was simply trying to match the filesystem > > > > > tarball with the name used in previous sdks. I am assuming that > > > > > the SDK backend script that built the sdk renamed those filesystem > > > > > files. > > > > > Looking at Sitara AMSDK > > > > > 05.05.01 (last oe-classic based sdk) the two filesystem tarballs > > > > > were named base-rootfs-am335x-evm.tar.gz and > > > > > tisdk-rootfs-am335x-evm.tar.gz. During that time I was focused > > > > > on just getting the filesystem working and wanted it to look > > > > > like the output from previous sdks. I don't think I had any other > > > > > reason. > > > > > > > > Thanks! Just wanted to check if there was some sort of requirement > > > > for that name change. If there is not, then we can look for a > > > > better names for full image as well as base image. > > > > > > > > Should we look into unifying the names for other image recipes? Is > > > > tisdk-rootfs- the best base we can think of? > > > > > [Franklin] I think it's important to separate the "arago" images > > > from the "sdk" images. I am currently ok with the naming convention > > > we use for our current images minus the one I created this patch for > > > :). But I'm open to suggestions. > > > > I'm not really sure what do you mean by separating arago from sdk. > > Arago distro is becoming the SDK, the Core TISDK one, to be exact. > > Other SDK products can build on top with slight variations. > > > > We can place more generic packagegroups and images into > > meta-arago-extras and keep TISDK specific ones in meta-arago-distro. > > > > As of the naming convention - I'm not exactly married to the arago- > > prefix for the image recipes, it was just a historic tradition - > > arago-base-image, arago-console-image, etc. I'm Ok with tisdk- prefix, > > but "rootfs" part always felt slightly artificial to me, as it was > > forced from outside and in OE images are images and there's no need to call > them rootfs. > > > > Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that now is the perfect time to > > align on the naming convention for our images and we don't need to > > stick to any of the existing names... > > Franklin, > > Can you think of a unified naming for all the images, including base and full > tisdk, as well as less common console and test images, that is scalable > enough. As > I'm thinking going back to arago-base-image and arago-tisdk-image vs. > simplifying it to tisdk-base-image and tisdk-full-image. Plus it has to work > with > your other packagegroup restructure proposal... :) [Franklin]
How about the following: tisdk-rootfs-base-image -> arago-full-image ( me new proposed image) tisdk-rootfs-image -> arago-full-sdk-image arago-base-tisdk-image -> arago-base-sdk-image arago-core-tisdk-image -> arago-core-sdk-image Tisdk-server-rootfs-image -> arago-server-sdk-image Since our images are in meta-arago-distro which is dependent on meta-ti I think we could drop the "ti" from the image name to make it simpler. Based on the above logic I would probably change our packagegroups from using tisdk and simply call it sdk. But if anyone has an issue I am ok with keeping tisdk in the packagegroups and images name. > > -- > Denys _______________________________________________ meta-arago mailing list [email protected] http://arago-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/meta-arago
