On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Bruce, Henry <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
I have pushed the patches; please if you have some time try to prepare the patch and send for review. It'd be of great help. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
