[OE-core] Core image recipes
Paul Eggleton
paul.eggleton at linux.intel.com
Wed Sep 7 13:18:10 UTC 2011
On Friday 26 August 2011 17:39:09 Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Friday 26 August 2011 17:18:15 Saul Wold wrote:
> > On 08/26/2011 02:47 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > > meta/recipes-extended/images/core-image-basic.bb
> >
> > This image should NOT contain any X11, this is supposed to be an
> > extention of core-image-minimal with many of the busybox related
> > commands substituted for the real command set. The intention of this
> > image is two fold, first it's the largest image that we test against
> > non-GPLv3 and it's the non-graphical LSB image (I am not sure if there
> > is a spec test defined for that.
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure what I was thinking earlier, you're right it doesn't
> appear to have X.
Now I know why I thought this. Because task-core.bb defines task packages that
depend on X applications, any recipe that inherits from core-image will force
a build of all of the X apps even if it doesn't intend to use them - so both
core-image-basic and core-image-base suffer from this. This is not really very
good and I think we ought to be splitting up task-core to avoid this. FYI
whilst core-image-minimal inherits from core-image it overrides IMAGE_INSTALL
and thus doesn't use anything from task-core and therefore does not have this
issue.
> I can't access the LSB specs website right now
> unfortunately but does this have an official name within LSB? It's not
> "LSB-Core" is it?
Yep, it's LSB-Core (yet another meaning of "core", sigh...)
> > > Then, we have core-image-base, which whilst it doesn't remove package
> > > management files, does not have "package-management" in its features,
> > > so it's not a whole lot different to core-image-minimal AFAICT.
> >
> > On this one I might agree, I know that we have not built that image, nor
> > does it seem to be used by anything else.
>
> If there's demand for a minimal image with package management (someone
> asked for this on IRC just the other day, and it makes sense to me at
> least) then that's what I'd suggest turning this into. In which case it
> ought to be called core-image-minimal-pkgmgmt or something similar.
Any opinions on this one?
Cheers,
Paul
--
Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
More information about the Openembedded-core
mailing list