>-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:meta-arago- >[email protected]] On Behalf Of 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=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)
What will this image contain? > >tisdk-rootfs-image -> arago-full-sdk-image I want to differentiate between rootfs vs. sdk images. So maybe this one is arago-sdk-full-rootfs-image >arago-base-tisdk-image -> arago-base-sdk-image arago-sdk-base-rootfs-image >arago-core-tisdk-image -> arago-core-sdk-image Keep the same >Tisdk-server-rootfs-image -> arago-server-sdk-image arago-sdk-server-rootfs-image What do you think? > >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 _______________________________________________ meta-arago mailing list [email protected] http://arago-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/meta-arago
