2009/12/30 Koen Kooi <[email protected]>: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 29-12-09 23:42, Khem Raj wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Leon Woestenberg >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hello Koen, >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Koen Kooi <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>> Hash: SHA1 >>>> >>>> On 29-12-09 16:15, Leon Woestenberg wrote: >>>>> Why do we hardcode names of default packages in the "image.bbclass"? >>>>> >>>>> Now every image recipe that doesn't want these has to know the >>>>> variables it has to override. >>>>> >>>>> Shouldn't this be distro material instead? >>>> >>>> No, since these are things you want to be able to manage on a per image >>>> basis, not distro wide. I don't want to create a whole 'new' distro just >>>> to try mdev instead of udev or use tinylogin instead of shadow, etc. >>>> When we made that change we discussed what the default values for those >>>> vars should be and it was agreed they should provide sane defaults. >>>> >>> OK understood, apparantly we want to have a generic image base >>> containing udev, a login, shadow etc. >>> that is distro-indepent. >>> >>> Can we remove that from the image class, and move into a >>> image-boot.inc or something? > > What's the problem with setting 3 vars to "" in your helloworld image? >
What is wrong with the philosophy to have a bare minimal system and add the three images to those who need them (and allow them to derive from a base image that has these 3 packages. E.g. one could then derive/extend base_image if you want to. My philosophy is to keep things generic and specialize when going to more specific situations, not to have a partially specialized solution which has to be made more generic.fro a specific situation. Frans. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
