On 2/24/14, 11:00 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 16:38 +0000, Paul Eggleton wrote:
On Monday 30 December 2013 12:59:26 Paul Eggleton wrote:
On Monday 30 December 2013 09:35:18 Robert Yang wrote:
I'm afraid that the standardlinux maybe a little confused with
linuxstdbase, bu I don't have any better idea about it.
You could be right. I've thought for a long time about renaming this and
haven't been able to come up with anything better. On the other hand, in our
current configuration we are actually using the basic/standardlinux
packagegroup as part of our LSB images; although that might not be the
right thing to continue doing - LSB probably ought to be independent.
FWIW, let's consider this particular patch as RFC, maybe someone else has a
better idea of what to name it. I am very much convinced that "basic" is not
the right name though.
So, has anyone got any better ideas for the name of core-image-basic and
packagegroup-core-basic?
The idea is that these are meant to contain things that you might have on a
more traditional or full-featured Linux system. Somehow "-traditionallinux"
doesn't really work either.
"fulllinux"?
"linuxcmdline"?
I've resolved this naming conundrum in the past by simply having a document that
explains what the name means. "basic - basic command line utilities"
I agree basic isn't the most descriptive name, but I'm not sure what is.
--Mark
Cheers,
Richard
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
