On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 03:28:43PM -0400, Maupin, Chase wrote: > >-----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
Heh, I was the one who asked Franklin specifically to drop "rootfs" part... :) Please read the above explanation. For the most part, images are rootfs. But I see what you are saying - we now have these hybrid SDK images that contain other rootfs images, kernel/bootloader images and devkit(s). So, how about we clearly mark those instead of everything else with "rootfs"? > >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
