Hi, On Wed Jan 14, 2026 at 4:39 PM CET, Alexander Kanavin via lists.openembedded.org wrote: [...] >> > 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.
I think the point here is that newcomers reading the documentation will use the default registry and not a custom configuration template, and that it would be more user-friendly to _not_ make the user choose options from the default registry. That being said… I think it was the intention of the project to give the user the option to choose. I don't really have an opinion on whether the user should choose or not choose at the moment. On that note, if we go the "user has to choose every option" way, I think it would be nice to have a description of built-in fragments too. If you read this as a newcomer: Target machines: 1. machine/qemux86-64 2. machine/qemuarm64 3. machine/qemuriscv64 4. machine/genericarm64 5. machine/genericx86-64 Please select one of the above options by its number: Distribution configuration variants: 1. distro/poky 2. distro/poky-altcfg 3. distro/poky-tiny Please select one of the above options by its number: I'm not sure a newcomer would know what to choose here. A description would probably help. It's also a simple addition I guess? Antonin -- Antonin Godard, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#229344): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/229344 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]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
