On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 at 16:19, Antonin Godard via lists.openembedded.org <[email protected]> wrote: > I like the Template/Instance suggestion, but I'm not sure about removing the > word "configuration" out of these terms. We are speaking about the > _configuration_ of a Setup after all, and "BitBake Setup Instance" could be > misinterpreted as a running bitbake-setup execution. > > So maybe: > > Bitbake Setup Configuration Template > Bitbake Setup Configuration Instance > > or simply: > > Configuration Template > Configuration Instance > > Would be enough. Having "BitBake Setup" prefixing every occurrence of this > term > is going to be too much otherwise? > > What do you think?
I was going to write this exact response, but you got there first :) I agree: should be 'configuration template/instance' when the context is clear, or prefixed with 'bitbake-setup ...' when it isn't clear that it's about that tool and its data. > > 2. Allow Empty Variants in Templates > > > > Currently, bitbake-setup init requires the user to select a variant when > > one is defined in the template. There is no option to skip this selection. > > I believe this is already achievable with the --skip-selection option? > > > Allowing templates without variants (or making variant selection optional) > > would reduce the number of questions during setup, making the process > > faster and more approachable for newcomers. > > Instead of no variants, maybe we just want to instruct the user to run: > > bitbake-setup init --non-interactive choice1 choice2 ... > > Another idea would be to make it possible to define default choices > in an existing template? The documentation would then instruct the user to > simply execute: > > bitbake-setup init --non-interactive > > which, with no choices passed on the command-line, would provide the user with > the default variant (the Poky Setup). The default choices would still have to > be > printed on the console to make it clear to the user what was selected. It would really help to provide an example config template, and use that to illustrate usability issues, and proposed improvements. I'm afraid I simply am confused by the point 2, and I don't understand the issue reported in it, or the suggested solution. If there are no choices to be made (e.g. only one variant), bitbake-setup will pick that without asking. There's also --skip-selection option, but it is expressly *not* for newcomers as it will result in an incomplete bitbake config. If one wants less questions, then they should remove variants from the configuration template, otherwise bitbake-setup needs to pick something from several choices one way or another. The other points I'll address separately. Thanks, Alex
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#229335): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/229335 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/117262508/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
