On 1/27/23 12:13 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 01:03:04PM -0500, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 10:52:34AM -0600, Ryan Eatmon wrote:
On 1/27/2023 9:52, Andrew Davis wrote:
On 1/26/23 6:51 PM, Randolph Sapp via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26 2023 at 03:58:01 PM -0500, Denys Dmytriyenko
<[email protected]> wrote:
I'm realizing now that simply depending on "opengl"
DISTRO_FEATURES won't be
enough, unfortunately.
The issue is that DISTRO_FEATURES are set by the distro globally for all
machines, whether with accelerated graphics, display w/o acceleration or
completely headless. E.g. when building for J7200, "opengl"
will be set, but
none of the graphics packages should be built or installed
into the image.
So, some sort of check for MACHINE_FEATURES or PREFERRED_PROVIDER (less
elegant) would still be needed in some places...
Arguably that's a package group / distro target issue. I believe
when a user selects the default image with all features enabled
for J721E and J721S2 the package selection should be equivalent
(or at least as equivalent as possible with the stuff going on
now in meta-ti) to align with the distro features selected. I
believe the solution to this is to add a headless target/image
that removes Qt, GTK, etc. from the selected package groups and
to suggest the use of that instead if users want a truly
headless distro.
Agree here, I believe this was the solution we came up with in
our call the other day.
I'd go as far as suggesting we drop the "default" image and try to match
Ubuntu naming here. Have 3 images: Desktop, Server, and IoT. (IoT is
a rebranded tisdk-thinlinux-image). User selects the one that matches
their usecase, no need to force them into one bucket automatically based
on their hardware.
Andrew
That level of renaming will likely require a broader audience. I
agree that it would be clearer naming to follow what other
distributions do and not invent our own names.
Agree. As I mentioned on the call yesterday, last round of image (re-)naming
took quite a while and lots of effort to get everyone on the product side
aligned and agree...
BTW, you should still be able to find the corresponding internal Confluence
page with that activity and related discussions.
Sure, I'll can go look for that at some point, but for now I'll just take
your word for it.
Moreover, images is just part of the problem - some thought needs to be put
into how the devkit is produced (and or named) and the top-level SDK product
bundle, which combines all images, devkit and docs/manifests.
So this is a core point, this (meta-ti/meta-arago) are community projects. I
know
who sponsors them and signs our paychecks, but we do all this out in the open
for a
reason. We would like community support; and if we go against the grain to
appease
the BUs (Business Units for those following along at home) then we might lose
some
of that benefit.
The BUs have their own OE layers that, although they have external facing
mirrors,
they do all their development internally and all their decisions can be made to
to serve the BUs' goals. Not saying let's go intentionally make their life
difficult
or not consider them at all, but let's also not tangle up Arago solely to make
the
TI internal repos easier to manage.
Andrew
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#14194):
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-arago/message/14194
Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/96510217/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-arago/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
