On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 02:43:25PM -0600, Ryan Eatmon wrote: > On 1/28/2025 2:30 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > >On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 01:58:08PM -0600, Etheridge, Darren wrote: > >>On 1/23/2025 3:20 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > >>>A more generic question: > >>> > >>>There are now multiple configs with meta-browser and meta-selinux listed: > >>> > >>>* arago-scarthgap: both meta-browser and meta-selinux are disabled > >>>* arago-scarthgap-chromium: meta-browser is enabled, meta-selinux is > >>>disabled > >>>* arago-scarthgap-selinux: meta-browser is disabled, meta-selinux is > >>>enabled > >>> > >>>Since there are now separate configs, should they be cleaned up and layers > >>>that are disabled or unused removed from them? That way when you need to > >>>bump > >>>say meta-browser, you just need to update one config, not all 3. > >>> > >> > >>This whole thing was a compromise because we didn't want to take the > >>hit of building Chromium for every config. But we did want to give > >>the ability to enable Chromium easily in every config. So we just > >>comment it out and leave it up to the end user to uncomment it if > >>they want Chromium to get built and burn several hours. Maybe there > >>is a nicer way to do it, but at the time this is what we came up > >>with that worked for everybody involved. > > > >Yes, back in Dunfell days this was exactly the case - there was a single main > >config file with meta-browser being commented out (as it also depended on > >deprecated Python2). Before that I kept it at an old commit that still > >allowed > >Chromium to be built with gcc and didn't require clang (and very long > >builds). > > > >Anyway, with Kirkstone and Scarthgap, you now have separate configs for > >builds > >with meta-browser/Chromium enabled, as well as meta-selinux enabled. My point > >being, since there are separate configus for such builds, why still keep > >commented out references in the main config? > > > >I.e. people can use arago-scarthgap-chromium config directly to get a build > >with Chromium enabled, instead of manually modifying the main arago-scarthgap > >config in order to enable Chromium... > > I think part of the issue is if you use our "locked down" configs > with the SHAs for each of the layers that each snapshot build > produces, then you can just uncomment the line and move on. If it > is a separate config, then you need to add the chromium line to the > locked down config. Does that make sense?
Hmm, are those locked down configs available anywhere, or are those internal only? Either way, I was just looking at making everyone's life easier, but if the opposite is easier for your workflow, so be it :) -- Denys -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#15771): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-arago/message/15771 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/110778644/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-arago/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
