[oe] [Angstrom-devel] RFC: Add ipkg to minimal image

[Rod Whitby]

Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>   While your work on getting useful small Angstrom images are of
> course great, I think definition of minimal image as above as perfect
> as it can get, so it would be better to create separate image. That
> would lead to proliferation, as we already have
> minimal-image-with-mtd-utils, but well, forking stuff for copies to
> undergo evolution is apparently better than hacking axiom for each
> occasion. Just my 2 cents.

That's why I'm asking.  The axiom is not documented anywhere
(there should be a comment at the top of each image file saying
what the definition and intent of the image is), so one has to
first determine whether a fork is required, or whether the changes
fit in the definition of the intent of the image.

By the conflicting replies here, it is clear that the intent of
minimal-image.bb is not well defined.  Who is the maintainer of
that image, and could that person please document the intent at
the top of the minimal-image.bb file?

I do agree with those who need a *really* minimal image, and I
poked CoreDump to free up the essential-image.bb namespace as a
candidate for the name of that type of image, in case the
not-really-that-minimal definition of minimal-image prevails.

-- Rod