On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 07:52:50PM +0200, Leon Woestenberg wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Koen Kooi <k...@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
> >
> > Op 18 mei 2011, om 19:08 heeft Phil Blundell het volgende geschreven:
> >
> >> On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 09:40 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> >>> Problem I have is, I dont want udev in RDEPENDS which is added by
> >>> task-core-boot
> >>> and task-core-boot is added to DISTRO_EXTRA_RDEPENDS through
> >>> default-distrovars.inc -> defaultsetup.conf -> bitbake.conf
> >>>
> >>> and my distro adds DISTRO_EXTRA_RDEPENDS to its RDEPENDS
> >>> as I think the variable is meant for distro's to define some extra
> >>> stuff if needed.
> >>>
> >>> How should I solve this problem ?
> >>
> >> Well, what I did in micro-base-image was simply to not use
> >> task-core-boot at all. But in your case I was thinking that you could
> >> overlay that recipe with from your distro's layer and make it do
> >> whatever you wanted.
> >
> > The fact that we have layers does not mean we need to follow the silo
> > mentality you seem to prefer. If task-base in oe-core stops being usefull
> > we should fix it, now play around in our own little sandboxes.
FWIW: I also prefer to have "default" task-base, task-boot with sane
default settings in oe-core and every distro can reuse it as it is, or
customize with few global variables or replace with something completely
different if really needed (so I agree that it shouldn't be
unconditionaly added to DISTRO_EXTRA_RDEPENDS). Maybe we can introduce
VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_task-base ?= "task-base"
VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_task-boot ?= "task-core-boot"
and in default-distrovars.inc
DISTRO_EXTRA_RDEPENDS += "${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_task-boot}"
like we have ie for VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_apm,
VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_update-alternatives to keep variable namespace clean.
The same namespace for initscripts/login_manager/dev_manager and every
image recipe can use different values than what's default for distro.
But reinventing similar task-base/task-boot combo in every meta-distro
layer seems strange to me.
Regards,
> If task-base is getting less useful, removing it altogether (I found
> the reasons mentioned by Phil convincing) should be at least
> considered as an alternative.
>
> I am not sure why we should keep task-base as something generic --all
> distro's have their own specific requirements and configurations, even
> for task-base, so why not move this functionality into the distro and
> out of oe-core?
>
> I never quite saw what task-base gained us on a netto basis, but I
> think I am biased towards small tweaked images, so these are just my
> two cents.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Leon
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
--
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: martin.ja...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
