To me it seems that the SDK is the wrong kind of delivery to begin with (as
it is basically a frozen target image configuration without the ability to
customize the entire system build; Yocto SDKs are meant for application
development). What you need is a hardware BSP meta-layer with ability to
integrate the layer into your private build configurations.

If you can get the OEM to agree to this, we can discuss acceptance criteria
for such a layer.

Alex

On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 at 00:52, Kent Dorfman <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On 12/27/19, Josef Holzmayr <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hello Kent!
>
> thanks for the followup!
>
> > "close" is really somewhat relative here. The words that trigger my
> > alarm here are "mission critical" and "aerospace". Anything that I will
> > write below is no legal advice, and not fit for any form of
> > certification or audit. If these are your requirements, then there are
> > companies in the Yocto ecosystem that are willing to offer their
> > services.
>
> yeah...no legal advice is expected online...just a forum to vent in,
> sometimes.
>
>
>
> > BSPs are a constant cause of pain for us giving Yocto support too. If
> > a board vendor screws up, we get to pick up the pieces too many times.
>
> Yup...been there, done that.
>
>
>
> > Little to add, besides... that it might have been a bad choice or
> > negotiation, if you're only now learning that they want to charge you
> > additionally. Thats something we obviously can't help you with.
>
> Yes, very bad choice in a field with no notably good choices.
>
> > If they are not willing to hand out all sources plus metadata layers,
> > then thats a total red flag. Yet again, not something we could change.
>
> OK, to be clear, I have access to meta-layers, but a large percentage
> of the BB files point to private git repos, and they don't volunteer
> the gitshallow  for a repo unless I know enough to specifically ask
> them for that repo, and assuming it's not something they are claiming
> is IP.
>
>
> > Sorry, I mean... didn't you request at least some form of eval kit? Demo
> > boards? To actually understand what you are buying?
>
> bad decisions were made before I came on-board, and I did ask them for
> access to the SDK before we took dilivery of hardware, and they balked
> at that idea...which justifiably left me with an uneasy feeling.  Of
> course I would have denied delivery if I had seen the state of their
> reference SDK beforehand.
>
>
> > Up to this point, yes, I can feel your frustration, but there's little
> > to say other than that you probably have a bad partnership by now.
>
> Oh yeah, I think we're about to head into the "grudgingly conformant"
> phase of the relationship.
>
>
> > The cleanest without throwing away the whole build that you can do is
> > remove everything in the build directory besides "conf". Yet there are
> > probably two sides to your actual question. a "bitbake -c clean
> > $YOURRECIPE" is the perfect equivalent to make clean, "bitbake
> > $YOURRECIPE" equivalates to "make". Wiping tmp and sstate cache is
> > pretty close to a full clean rebuild of the whole system, and no, it
> > shall not break. If it does, there is either something wrong with your
> > build setup (can happen) or you hit a bug (happens less often, but
> > happens too). The second side is actually running a full system rebuild,
> > which includes the complete build setup. Actually there is no
> > Yocto-inhernt way to do it, as different people have different needs -
> > and nobody managed a one size fits all solution until now. You can look
> > at the autobuilder as provided by the Yocto Project, and at the various
> > approaches here [1];
>
> I empty the conf/ sstate_cache/ and tmp/ directories and try to do a
> devtool build-image, but failures ensue based on it trying to load
> from private git repos, and some jibberish about locked signatures not
> matching.  I just need to know that I'm reverting to a source level
> build "the right way".
>
>
> >> 2) related to above, yocto needs a much better description of the
> >> expected directory tree within a project.
> >
> > Within a project? Could you please elaborate?
>
> They provided and "ark" embedded SDK, that was presumably generated
> from yocto.  I'm not differentiating between projects because there is
> only one, so I'm mean within the SDK directory tree.
>
>
> > bitbake and devtool can and should be used side by side. Running bitbake
> > manually, as you put it, is the definitively primary way of doing
> > things. So if that eeks out for, there is probably something strange
> > with your setup. If you can provide a more extensive log or error
> > message, we will happily...erm, at least honestly try to help.
>
> Thanks.  bitbake fails when run manually, telling me that there is a
> "." or null path element when I know for a fact that there is not one.
> Apparently when devtool calls bitbake it sets up the path correctly,
> but when it is called manually (it's not in the shell path), it
> doesn't like the PATH var.  There are some online references to this
> problem but no authoritative solution or description of why.
>
>
>
> >> 5) a big area that seems to be lacking is the ability to inquire in a
> >> yocto build as to what is included in it.  This is especially
> >> important if the responsible party didn't actually create the build,
> >> as is our case.  We're left with trying to guess what the OEM did, and
> >> why.
> >
> > Now this is certainly not true. Even in the utmost default setup, a
> > manifest file will be created along the image which tells you which
> > packages including version and license that went into it.
>
> A manifest shows packages, not layers/recipes/packages, nor a
> breakdown of what is included as a consequence of what layers or
> recipes it exists in.  This makes trying to modify a build that
> someone else has created, more difficult.
>
>
> > bitbake -g $TARGETOFYOURCHOICE will give you a dot file to inspect the
> > complete dependency graph of your chosen target. This is a bit too much
> > in-depth at times, but extremely powerful.
>
> TARGETOFYOURCHOICE?  What is the glue between "target-name" and
> available meta-layers and recipes?
>
>
> > And last but not least, its a good practise to have buildhistory enabled
> > [2]. This offers extremely detailed information about each and every
> > package and dependency that went into your build, down to each single
> > file, package size,...
>
> Agreed.  I think their SDK has it enabled by default but I need to check.
>
>
>
> > Including pre-produced blobs in a Yocto build is not pretty, but often
> > handy or impossible to avoid. Please see [3] for the documentation on
> > it.
>
> Well, unless they give us git access I don't see any way around it.
>
>
> > In a nutshell: whenever somebody hands you a binary build, without the
> > corresponding set of sources and metadata, then you are out of luck and
> > in for a lot of pain. That exactly the way of how to NOT use yocto when
> > selling hardware. Some do, and unfortunately we, as the Yocto community
> > can't do much about it, other than try and help the folks who struggle
> > with it. And go buy our hardware in another place.
>
> I wish I did have options, but if you know business, they are all
> about free, as long as it doesn't pose any encumberance on them.  I
> need to see just how far the OEM is will to go, and if not far enough,
> then I've to evaluate other options.
>
>
> > With that, I hope I could give a somewhat helpful but certainly
> > honest answer.
>
>
> Gracias, Amigo!
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
>
> View/Reply Online (#47827):
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/47827
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/69288358/1686489
> Group Owner: [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub  [
> [email protected]]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#47828): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/47828
Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/69288358/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub  
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Reply via email to