On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 14:57 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Paul Eggleton > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tuesday 24 February 2015 14:06:41 Otavio Salvador wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Bruce, Henry <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > I'm putting together an OS image that includes a Java headless > >> > application. Having used the openjdk7-jre-headless package on Ubuntu I > >> > was hoping to find a matching recipe, but sadly none exist,. The > >> > openjdk7-jre recipe requires the X11 distro feature which adds > >> > unnecessary luggage for a small footprint IoT solution. Thanks to a > >> > bbappend from https://github.com/woglinde/meta-java/issues/45 I can > >> > minimize footprint, but a headless recipe would be a better solution. > >> > I'm fairly new to Yocto so could someone explain the challenges of a > >> > headless recipe and where one might start when creating one? > >> > >> Patches are welcome. I think the link you posted has a good base of > >> work done so you could start there and later follow the README file to > >> post the patches here. > > > > Perhaps more concretely, this would presumably be a place where you would > > use > > PACKAGECONFIG to add and remove the appropriate dependencies and also > > options > > in EXTRA_OECONF. It looks like that bbappend has a mixture of things that > > are > > and aren't related to building without X. Henry, I'm not sure if you've come > > across PACKAGECONFIG yet but just in case, here is an example from our > > mpeg2dec recipe: > > > > PACKAGECONFIG ?= "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'x11', 'x11', '', > > d)}" > > PACKAGECONFIG[x11] = "--with-x,--without-x,virtual/libx11 libxext libxv" > > > > (Obviously you'd need to use values appropriate for the openjdk recipe in > > the second line.) > > The only drawback I see from the PACKAGECONFIG solution, for this > specific case, is that I can see use cases where one product will use > headless and another use complete Java and this would impose or > machine specific packages or split distros. > > However I also think that MOST people will use headless so maybe we > could add the PACKAGECONFIG and default to headless and handle the > exception when it happens... >
Otavio and Paul - thanks for the pointers. PACKAGECONFIG looks like a good approach as I can't see much demand for headful applications in the embedded space. As there is no quick route to a headless recipe I can live with current bbappend solution for the time being. I'll soon be out for couple of months and will check in when I get back. Henry -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
