Re: [yocto] of recipes and packages
On Wednesday 22 August 2012 13:05:15 Trevor Woerner wrote: to discover the list of available recipes (for a given set of layers) one can use: $ bitbake -s However: $ bitbake --help | grep -- -s ... -s, --show-versions show current and preferred versions of all packages ... ...versions of all _packages_!? Shouldn't that be recipes? It should, yes. FYI a long time ago we just used the word package to describe both the recipe and the output package - eventually it was realised that this was confusing and it was changed; however there are still odd vestiges of it in a few places, one of which you just pointed out. In this instance we can change it very easily in the BitBake help text and we should do so. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] of recipes and packages
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:14 AM, Paul Eggleton paul.eggle...@linux.intel.com wrote: In this instance we can change it very easily in the BitBake help text and we should do so. So should I send in a patch against the Yocto Project's poky/bitbake/bin/bitbake or try to have it accepted upstream? ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
[yocto] of recipes and packages
Okay, if the confusion over yocto versus yocto project versus poky and trying to decide whether poky or yocto is a distribution or a build system or sometimes both or neither of either wasn't bad enough... there now comes a new confusion: recipes versus packages an image is composed of packages a recipe for a given piece of software generates a set of packages to discover the list of packages generated by a recipe one can use: $ bitbake -e recipe | grep ^PACKAGES= to discover the list of available recipes (for a given set of layers) one can use: $ bitbake -s However: $ bitbake --help | grep -- -s ... -s, --show-versions show current and preferred versions of all packages ... ...versions of all _packages_!? Shouldn't that be recipes? ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] of recipes and packages
I tend to think of packages as ingredients, in keeping with the cooking metaphor. They have version numbers, just as ingredients in the refrigerator have expiration dates. The recipes, however, have their own version numbers, but they are less critical to the success of the build - maybe my Aunt Agnes has a version of Betty Crocker's yellow cake recipe, but improved slightly. If I make that recipe with old eggs, though, it will fail. In this case, bitbake is looking for the expiration dates on your ingredients - the version of the package that each recipe builds. With the list that comes from bitbake -s you can determine whether any of your packages is the right one. As for the versions of the recipes themselves, the Yocto Project's QA and testing process makes sure that each of the included recipes works, in the sense that it builds the package reliably. You can spice them up if you like. Chris Hallinan wrote up a good description of many of the terms used in the project: http://blogs.mentor.com/chrishallinan/blog/2012/04/13/yocto-versus-poky-versus-angstrom-etc/ Hope that helps On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Trevor Woerner twoer...@gmail.com wrote: Okay, if the confusion over yocto versus yocto project versus poky and trying to decide whether poky or yocto is a distribution or a build system or sometimes both or neither of either wasn't bad enough... there now comes a new confusion: recipes versus packages an image is composed of packages a recipe for a given piece of software generates a set of packages to discover the list of packages generated by a recipe one can use: $ bitbake -e recipe | grep ^PACKAGES= to discover the list of available recipes (for a given set of layers) one can use: $ bitbake -s However: $ bitbake --help | grep -- -s ... -s, --show-versions show current and preferred versions of all packages ... ...versions of all _packages_!? Shouldn't that be recipes? ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto -- Jeff Osier-Mixon http://jefro.net/blog Yocto Project Community Manager @Intel http://yoctoproject.org ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] of recipes and packages
Hi Jeff, Thanks for your tasty metaphors! On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Jeff Osier-Mixon je...@jefro.net wrote: In this case, bitbake is looking for the expiration dates on your ingredients - the version of the package that each recipe builds. But your wording would seem to imply _a_ recipe builds _a_ package. But a recipe doesn't build a package, a recipe potentially builds lots of packages. For example the net-snmp recipe builds the following packages: net-snmp-dbg net-snmp-doc net-snmp-dev net-snmp-staticdev net-snmp-static net-snmp-libs net-snmp-mibs net-snmp-server net-snmp-client bitbake -s doesn't list net-snmp-dbg net-snmp-doc net-snmp-dev... it lists net-snmp. Therefore couldn't the wording of the bitbake help be improved to say: -s, --show-versions show current and preferred versions of all __recipes__ instead of: -s, --show-versions show current and preferred versions of all __packages__ ? Chris Hallinan wrote up a good description of many of the terms used Actually I wrote this email after reading his very next blog post: http://blogs.mentor.com/chrishallinan/blog/2012/04/27/more-on-yocto-terminology-recipes-and-packages/ :-) ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] of recipes and packages
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Trevor Woerner twoer...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Jeff Osier-Mixon je...@jefro.net wrote: In this case, bitbake is looking for the expiration dates on your ingredients - the version of the package that each recipe builds. But your wording would seem to imply _a_ recipe builds _a_ package. But a recipe doesn't build a package, a recipe potentially builds lots of packages. For example the net-snmp recipe builds the following packages: net-snmp-dbg net-snmp-doc net-snmp-dev net-snmp-staticdev net-snmp-static net-snmp-libs net-snmp-mibs net-snmp-server net-snmp-client bitbake -s doesn't list net-snmp-dbg net-snmp-doc net-snmp-dev... it lists net-snmp. Therefore couldn't the wording of the bitbake help be improved to say: -s, --show-versions show current and preferred versions of all __recipes__ instead of: It could, and should, be changed in that way, yes. -- Christopher Larson ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] of recipes and packages
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Chris Larson clar...@kergoth.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Trevor Woerner twoer...@gmail.com wrote: bitbake -s doesn't list net-snmp-dbg net-snmp-doc net-snmp-dev... it lists net-snmp. Therefore couldn't the wording of the bitbake help be improved to say: -s, --show-versions show current and preferred versions of all __recipes__ instead of: It could, and should, be changed in that way, yes. Do the OE people accept this wording too, or is this a yocto-project-only thing? In other words, should a potential patch be sent to OE or here? ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] of recipes and packages
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Trevor Woerner twoer...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Chris Larson clar...@kergoth.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Trevor Woerner twoer...@gmail.com wrote: bitbake -s doesn't list net-snmp-dbg net-snmp-doc net-snmp-dev... it lists net-snmp. Therefore couldn't the wording of the bitbake help be improved to say: -s, --show-versions show current and preferred versions of all __recipes__ instead of: It could, and should, be changed in that way, yes. Do the OE people accept this wording too, or is this a yocto-project-only thing? In other words, should a potential patch be sent to OE or here? The change would be to a core component, which is part of OE and which yocto pulls in — bitbake. So it would make no sense to send the patch here. No changes to bitbake are going into poky without going into the main bitbake repository. The bitbake-devel mailing list is the correct place for it. -- Christopher Larson ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] of recipes and packages
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, Chris Larson wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Trevor Woerner twoer...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Chris Larson clar...@kergoth.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Trevor Woerner twoer...@gmail.com wrote: bitbake -s doesn't list net-snmp-dbg net-snmp-doc net-snmp-dev... it lists net-snmp. Therefore couldn't the wording of the bitbake help be improved to say: -s, --show-versions show current and preferred versions of all __recipes__ instead of: It could, and should, be changed in that way, yes. Do the OE people accept this wording too, or is this a yocto-project-only thing? In other words, should a potential patch be sent to OE or here? The change would be to a core component, which is part of OE and which yocto pulls in — bitbake. So it would make no sense to send the patch here. No changes to bitbake are going into poky without going into the main bitbake repository. The bitbake-devel mailing list is the correct place for it. there really should be an official glossary somewhere, and it should be backed up with *actual* *examples* from the source as much as possible. that is, don't use foo if there's an existing recipe or package whose use would be more informative. rday -- Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] of recipes and packages
On 08/22/2012 01:27 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, Chris Larson wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Trevor Woerner twoer...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Chris Larson clar...@kergoth.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Trevor Woerner twoer...@gmail.com wrote: bitbake -s doesn't list net-snmp-dbg net-snmp-doc net-snmp-dev... it lists net-snmp. Therefore couldn't the wording of the bitbake help be improved to say: -s, --show-versions show current and preferred versions of all __recipes__ instead of: It could, and should, be changed in that way, yes. Do the OE people accept this wording too, or is this a yocto-project-only thing? In other words, should a potential patch be sent to OE or here? The change would be to a core component, which is part of OE and which yocto pulls in — bitbake. So it would make no sense to send the patch here. No changes to bitbake are going into poky without going into the main bitbake repository. The bitbake-devel mailing list is the correct place for it. there really should be an official glossary somewhere, and it should be backed up with *actual* *examples* from the source as much as possible. that is, don't use foo if there's an existing recipe or package whose use would be more informative. From Jeff's description, it sounded like the package (especially 'package version') comes from the stuff that is the recipe's *input*, and not the recipe's output -- if you've selected to build packages and not just a straight image. Is 'package' also used in that sense, to describe, say, the tarball for busybox before it's processed by bitbake and made into an busybox binary ipkg or rpm? Or am I just muddying the waters further? BTW, on denzil, I get the following: $ bitbake -s | grep busybox busybox :1.19.4-r2 Note that this includes the version of busybox (the input source version), as well as (I think) the recipe revision number. And yes - a definitive glossary would be great. -- Tim = Tim Bird Architecture Group Chair, CE Workgroup of the Linux Foundation Senior Staff Engineer, Sony Network Entertainment = ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] of recipes and packages
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Tim Bird tim.b...@am.sony.com wrote: On 08/22/2012 01:27 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, Chris Larson wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Trevor Woerner twoer...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Chris Larson clar...@kergoth.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Trevor Woerner twoer...@gmail.com wrote: bitbake -s doesn't list net-snmp-dbg net-snmp-doc net-snmp-dev... it lists net-snmp. Therefore couldn't the wording of the bitbake help be improved to say: -s, --show-versions show current and preferred versions of all __recipes__ instead of: It could, and should, be changed in that way, yes. Do the OE people accept this wording too, or is this a yocto-project-only thing? In other words, should a potential patch be sent to OE or here? The change would be to a core component, which is part of OE and which yocto pulls in — bitbake. So it would make no sense to send the patch here. No changes to bitbake are going into poky without going into the main bitbake repository. The bitbake-devel mailing list is the correct place for it. there really should be an official glossary somewhere, and it should be backed up with *actual* *examples* from the source as much as possible. that is, don't use foo if there's an existing recipe or package whose use would be more informative. From Jeff's description, it sounded like the package (especially 'package version') comes from the stuff that is the recipe's *input*, and not the recipe's output -- if you've selected to build packages and not just a straight image. Is 'package' also used in that sense, to describe, say, the tarball for busybox before it's processed by bitbake and made into an busybox binary ipkg or rpm? Or am I just muddying the waters further? BTW, on denzil, I get the following: $ bitbake -s | grep busybox busybox :1.19.4-r2 anything you bake using bitbake is a recipe (input rules) which then generates packages (output) and there can be many packages generated from single recipes and one of the name of output package can be same as recipe name. Note that this includes the version of busybox (the input source version), as well as (I think) the recipe revision number. And yes - a definitive glossary would be great. -- Tim = Tim Bird Architecture Group Chair, CE Workgroup of the Linux Foundation Senior Staff Engineer, Sony Network Entertainment = ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
