[oe] Move IMAGE_BOOT stuff into distro's?

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2009/12/30 Koen Kooi <k.kooi at student.utwente.nl>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 29-12-09 23:42, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Leon Woestenberg
>> <leon.woestenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hello Koen,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Koen Kooi <k.kooi at student.utwente.nl> wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On 29-12-09 16:15, Leon Woestenberg wrote:
>>>>> Why do we hardcode names of default packages in the "image.bbclass"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Now every image recipe that doesn't want these has to know the
>>>>> variables it has to override.
>>>>>
>>>>> Shouldn't this be distro material instead?
>>>>
>>>> No, since these are things you want to be able to manage on a per image
>>>> basis, not distro wide. I don't want to create a whole 'new' distro just
>>>> to try mdev instead of udev or use tinylogin instead of shadow, etc.
>>>> When we made that change we discussed what the default values for those
>>>> vars should be and it was agreed they should provide sane defaults.
>>>>
>>> OK understood, apparantly we want to have a generic image base
>>> containing udev, a login, shadow etc.
>>> that is distro-indepent.
>>>
>>> Can we remove that from the image class, and move into a
>>> image-boot.inc or something?
>
> What's the problem with setting 3 vars to "" in your helloworld image?
>

What is wrong with the philosophy to have a bare minimal system and
add the three images to those who need them (and allow them to derive
from a base image that has these 3 packages.

E.g. one could then derive/extend base_image if you want to.

My philosophy is to keep things generic and specialize when going to
more specific situations, not to have a partially specialized solution
which has to be made more generic.fro a specific situation.

Frans.