[OE-core] [PATCH 00/10] Initial systemd integration
Ciprian Ciubotariu
cheepeero at gmx.net
Tue Jan 22 22:04:55 UTC 2013
On Monday 21 January 2013 12:12:14 Burton, Ross wrote:
> On 21 January 2013 03:30, Ciprian Ciubotariu <cheepeero at gmx.net> wrote:
> > However, with oe-core/meta providing a default embedded policy, higher
> > layers need to remove sysvinit or systemd stuff from base recipes, which
> > is
> > against bitbake's additive language design (only append/prepend functions,
> > no -= operator) and against separating concerns.
>
> If you don't do a systemd build, you won't get any of the systemd
> files. Ditto, sysvinit (well, that's the goal - as it was an
> assumption until now that needs work still).
>
Does that mean that I can disable the default init manager somehow, and
provide my own?
> An oe-core without *any* init system will be very cumbersome - every
> service will need a bbappend to actually work, with the subsequent
> maintenance costs.
>
I fail to see the overhead of maintaining a feature in one file, and the init-
manager part of the same feature in another file. The actual complexity is the
same as when adding an use-flag like configuration variable in a single-file
recipe; perhaps one avoids hitting "Open..." on the editor.
However, if I understand correctly, one can disable the default OE policy for
an init manager, though not by choice of different layers, but via having
systemd or not in DISTRO_FEATURES.
Does this means that
- having DISTRO_FEATURES += "systemd" we get a system with systemd;
- DISTRO_FEATURES += "sysvinit" makes a system with sysvinit, and
- leaving DISTRO_FEATURES blank leaves us with a system with no init manager,
to which we can add our own?
I guess the most important aspect I am trying to communicate is: please do not
provide any by default.
Cipi
> Ross
More information about the Openembedded-core
mailing list