[OE-core] Adding a "tiny" DISTRO_FEATURE and having packages build smaller

[Burton, Ross]

On 1 February 2018 at 14:17, Daniel F. Dickinson <cshored at thecshore.com>
wrote:

> On 01/02/18 09:12 AM, Burton, Ross wrote:
>
>> On 1 February 2018 at 14:10, Daniel F. Dickinson <cshored at thecshore.com
>> <mailto:cshored at thecshore.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 01/02/18 08:54 AM, Burton, Ross wrote:
>>
>>         On 1 February 2018 at 13:44, Daniel F. Dickinson
>>         <cshored at thecshore.com <mailto:cshored at thecshore.com>
>>         <mailto:cshored at thecshore.com <mailto:cshored at thecshore.com>>>
>>
>>         wrote:
>>
>>              I guess the question is would it be useful to have a flag
>>         that chooses
>>              a 'typical' tinyness but can be overridden (I'm think here of
>>              avoiding having to specify huge numbers of PACKAGECONFIGs
>> for a
>>              typical tiny case, when really you want most of the 'normal'
>>              tinyness with some
>>              tweaks.  What I'm think is that "tiny" really should just
>>         change the
>>              defaults for PACKAGECONFIG etc, but like the defaults can
>>         be easily
>>              overridden.
>>
>>
>>         Well in the idiomatic way the default would be "all the things
>>         are on", so doing a "tiny" build would be just setting
>>         PACKAGECONFIG="".
>>
>>         When we're dealing with tiny configurations you can't really say
>>         "and this is what people will want", because that's precisely
>>         the problem: you don't know what someone else will want.
>>
>>         Ross
>>
>>     Fair enough.  Is there a way to distribute a set of package configs
>>     and/or package selections (can a packagegroup do packageconfig or
>>     does that need to be specified in a different scope (I'm still
>>     getting used to openembedded)).  "tiny" is a bad choice because it's
>>     too generic, but perhaps "meta-tiny-router" "meta-tiny-switch"
>>     "meta-tiny-home-device" etc would make sense as mini-layers that
>>     could take care of sane defaults for different use cases (assuming
>>     the work of splitting packages up more and appropriate tinification
>>     PACKAGECONFIGs are either submitted to the appropriate layer or
>>     bbappended in various layers)?
>>
>>
>> A distribution can set other recipe's PACKAGECONFIGs directly:
>>
>> PACKAGECONFIG_pn-recipename = "foo bar"
>>
>> And distributions are welcome to bundle groups of those into inc files
>> for the user to pull in as required at the distro level.
>>
>

> I wonder if it'd be useful to have some .inc's of this variety added and
> included (commented out) in the poky-tiny distro default local.conf?
>

Included and enabled if they make sense, sure.  poky-tiny is, like
everything poky-specific, just an example.

It already has one:

PACKAGECONFIG_remove_pn-opkg-utils = "python"

Ross
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20180201/a8fa06d8/attachment-0002.html>