On 14-07-22 01:21 PM, Alexandru Vaduva wrote:
Hello Bruce,
What I understand from your mail you suggest using the already available
linux-yocto tree.
As an answer to this let me assure that as much as possible the meta-cgl layer
will try to do that. If that will not be the case I will let the community know
that.
Sounds good. I'm attempting to push everything I do in the yocto
eco system into that same kernel tree. That's why meta-cloud-services
and meta-virtualization don't carry custom kernels, even though they
have some very specific requirements.
One such case could be grsecurity(which as Joe mentioned changes the kernel
quite much) I also expect more such examples exist.
grsec is a well known kernel maintenance cost, but it is something that
we can easily deal with (if we want) in the common yocto kernel. Just look
at how preempt-rt is managed. We wouldn't want that for all boards and
builds, yet it is carried and maintained along with the other features.
One someone gets deeper into development, they may find that they want
to consume the patch series differently, and that's fine, but getting it
along
with the other reference kernel versions and features is a good kickstart
for development.
That means it always patches, and gets CVEs, -stable updates, etc. If
grsec is maintained out of a tree (that may or may not be the plan), you'll
find that even korg -stable updates will break the application and you'll
be in constant refresh mode. Not to mention, repeating the same
standard/boring maintenance tasks across multiple trees, when we could
be developing new features and fixing bugs.
Just more food for thought and options to consider.
Do you consider this subject needs a new email opened for it?
We could, but I just went and blathered on about it above. So we'll see if
an initial direction isn't too far away.
Cheers,
Bruce
I will think more about this and in the same time gather more information on it.
I will try to come back with an answer.
Alex
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Ashfield [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 6:59 PM
To: akuster; Alexandru Vaduva; Joe MacDonald
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [yocto] [OE-core] Carrier Grade layer proposal
On 14-07-22 11:54 AM, akuster wrote:
Alexandru,
Regarding a few packages in category C&D.
I have latest samhain building as well as grsecurity (pax patches
applied against 3.14.12) in a branch in my meta-security tree. I have
a bit more testing to do before I was going to post them.
And on this note, we should consider the kernel parts and see if getting them
into a common location is a good idea.
We already have the linux-yocto tree, and it tracks LTSI, has CVE and -stable
tracking, and is maintained to support the set of reference boards.
Creating yet more reference kernel trees doesn't help our goal of fewer trees
and a discrete set of kernel versions.
Just something to consider.
Cheers,
Bruce
grsecurity and samhain aren't CGL specific and they maybe belong in a
more generalize layer? just a thought.
regards,
Armin
On 07/22/2014 03:52 AM, Alexandru Vaduva wrote:
Hello Joe,
Here at Enea we are preparing the steps needed for publishing the
layer on the open embedded meta layers initiative:
http://layers.openembedded.org/layerindex/branch/master/layers/
For this we started working at a web page that should contain all the
relevant information regarding meta-cgl. It will be available in a
couple of weeks. Until then the layer will be available internally
and the patches should be submitted as the README states: on the
[email protected] mailing list. We will try to make the switch
to Open Embedded mailing list as quick as possible.
Regarding the other B, C and D packages that we will try to add into
the meta-cgl layer, I will post this information below, but keep in
mind that this information will also be available on the web page.
Category B packages:
- ifenslave
- evlog
- crash
- mipv6-daemon-umip
- openl2tp
Category C&D packages:
- drbd
- grsecurity
- logcheck
- makedumpfile
- numactl
- ocfs2-tools
- pam_passwdqc
- samhain
- ltt-usertrace
- ftrace
The above lists correspond with only the P1 requirements that we try
to fulfill for the moment. If there are any questions and/or
suggestions regarding this CGL initialtive please address them to me
and I will try to offer a response in the shortest time possible.
Thanks,
Alex
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe MacDonald [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 10:58 PM
To: Alexandru Vaduva
Cc: Jeff Osier-Mixon; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [yocto] [OE-core] Carrier Grade layer proposal
Hey Alex,
I've been away from this for a bit but now I'm getting time to look
at it again and I was wondering if you had any deeper level of detail
you could share about the work going on in meta-cgl. Obviously since
this is a new registration and one that will look rather different
from all of the other CGL registrations currently, those of us in the
CGL workgroup were quite interested to see this happen. Personally
I'm also interested in this since it's the kind of thing I've been
doing for a long time now and if I can, I'd like to help out. In
particular, if you've got a list of, say, the category B+ items, that
might be something I can do that will be independent of your work on
the more active cat-A stuff. OTOH, cat-A is easy to work on since
those are the items I saw when I was working with meta-cgl a month or
so back. I know you guys are focused on your part of it, but if you
had sort of a "here's how to help us" guide, that'd be awesome.
Also, I probably missed it, but is the intent to use either the yocto
list or the oe list for all meta-cgl discussions, or do you have a
dedicated list we can sign up for? I see you have guidance for
sending submissions to meta-cgl, but is that a list that's open to
the community, or is it an internal alias / distribution list for Enea?
Thanks,
-J.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Alexandru Vaduva
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Jeff,
The errors are package related.
Meta-cgl can be seen as a non BSP specific layer (it can be viewed
as the LSB from poky).
I already started fixing a number, of the already existing errors
and the patches will be added upstream after proper testing.
I will continue the bug fixing and package integration (into the
core-image-cgl image) process and after that is finished I will
continue with the Category B packages.
I will also try to keep you guys informed about the latest updates,
mainly on the YPTM, but for those who cannot wait that much, there
is the Git repository with which they can interact:
http://git.enea.com/git/?p=linux/meta-cgl.git;a=summary
Have a good day,
Alex
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Jeff Osier-Mixon
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 9:22 PM
To: Alexandru Vaduva
Subject: Re: [OE-core] Carrier Grade layer proposal
Thanks, Alex.
Others on the mailing lists, if you have any comments on the
contents of this new layer, please mention them on this thread.
Re compilation errors, were they specific to a BSP or were they
general errors in the packages?
thanks
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Alexandru Vaduva
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Jeff,
The available layer is a work in progress.
For the moment we have done an internal mapping of the packages
needed inside meta-cgl layer. The mapping is done as following:
A. Requirement that map against package/packages with recipes that
already exists in Yocto
A1. Requirement that map against package/packages with recipes
already existing in meta-enea
A2. Requirement that map against package/packages with recipes
that exists in Yocto (but not in meta-enea) B. Requirement that map
against package/packages without any recipe C. Requirement does not
directly map against package/packages and needs some investigation.
D. Requirement that no solution have been found after a more
detailed investigation.
When the release was made available on the public repository, the
packages from the A1 and A2 were integrated, a bunch of them with
compilation errors:
- lksctp-tools
- openais
- pacemaker
- openhpi
- open-iscsi-user
- open-iscsi-kernel
- libcap-ng
- cluster-glue
- cluster-resource-agents
The activity on the meta-cgl was resumed today and those build and
integration errors will be dealt next.
On the longer run we will try to create recipes and/or fulfill all
the other requirements from the class B, C, and D.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions.
Alex
From: Jon Aldama
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 1:07 PM
To: Alexandru Vaduva; Cosmin Moldoveanu; Jenny Andersson; David
Nyström
Cc: Daniel Bornaz; Adrian Dudau
Subject: RE: Carrier Grade layer proposal
Roger that! Thanks Alexandru!
From: Alexandru Vaduva
Sent: den 27 juni 2014 11:43
To: Jon Aldama; Cosmin Moldoveanu; Jenny Andersson; David Nyström
Cc: Daniel Bornaz; Adrian Dudau
Subject: RE: Carrier Grade layer proposal
Hello Jon,
We will first have an internal meeting on Monday and after that I
will offer an answer to Jeff.
Alex
From: Jon Aldama
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 12:32 PM
To: Cosmin Moldoveanu; Jenny Andersson; David Nyström
Cc: Alexandru Vaduva; Daniel Bornaz; Adrian Dudau
Subject: RE: Carrier Grade layer proposal
Thank you Cosmin,
Alexandru, could you please respond Jeff at the mailing list? (see
down
below)
Cheers
Jon
From: Cosmin Moldoveanu
Sent: den 27 juni 2014 10:59
To: Jenny Andersson; Jon Aldama; David Nyström
Cc: Alexandru Vaduva; Daniel Bornaz; Adrian Dudau
Subject: RE: Carrier Grade layer proposal
Hi,
Alexandru Vaduva will be main responsible for interfacing with
community on meta-cgl topic. He will also attend Yocto Technical
Meetings whenever necessary from now on.
BR,
/Cosmin
From: Jenny Andersson
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 10:32 AM
To: Jon Aldama; David Nyström; Cosmin Moldoveanu
Cc: Valentin Cobelea
Subject: RE: Carrier Grade layer proposal
Hi Cosmin,
How took over after Valentin left Enea? Could someone in your team
respond.
Thanks,
Jenny
From: Jon Aldama
Sent: den 27 juni 2014 09:28
To: David Nyström; Jenny Andersson
Cc: Valentin Cobelea
Subject: FW: Carrier Grade layer proposal
David, Jenny,
Will any of you answer this?
BTW, have you managed to file the Yocto compatibility application?
Regards
Jon
From: Osier-mixon, Jeffrey [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: den 26 juni 2014 20:36
To: David Nyström; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Valentin Cobelea;
[email protected]; Jon Aldama; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Cc: Philip Balister
Subject: YP: Carrier Grade layer proposal
Hi all - this is a simple followup to our meeting at ELC regarding
a meta-cgl layer, proposed by Enea.
The plan was to create a list of recipes to be included, and to
start a discussion on the mailing list.There is a thread on the
list from back in April, but I don't see anything more recent than
that. Has there been any progress?
thanks
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
--
Jeff Osier-Mixon @Intel
Yocto Project Community Manager http://yoctoproject.org
--
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
--
Joe MacDonald
:wq
--
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
