> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cooper Jr., Franklin
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:10 PM
> To: Dmytriyenko, Denys
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [meta-arago] [PATCH 1/2] tisdk-rootfs-base-image: Rename base
> file system image
>
>
>
> > -----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=f27b1f34aee2c2cbee25a0fb5b21cdb04f1
> > > > > > > 6e
> > > > > > > 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.
[Franklin] Thoughts?
>
> >
> > --
> > Denys
_______________________________________________
meta-arago mailing list
[email protected]
http://arago-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/meta-arago
