On 10/05/2011 01:03 PM, Philip Balister wrote:
On 10/05/2011 03:35 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Philip Balister<[email protected]>
wrote:
1) I do not want rpm in the image. This would confuse my customer base.
2) I am tired of dropbear, I want openssh only.
3) I need the full versions of tools, not the busybox ones.
4) I am not limited to gpv2 software.
Richard, it looks to me like we should add an item for the next Yocto
development cycle to review how images are built and try to make the
base
stuff in oe-core more usable by everyone. We need to define what
choices are
made by distros. For example opkg, rpm, no package management in image.
Images may want dropbear or openssh.
Short term, I think I'll copy the tasks/images into my bsp and get some
stuff together for testing. I'd like a better long term solution though.
There always will be customizations needed. But we can strive for
better basic blocks
Sure. The immediate things I noticed are rpm being installed and lack of
a way to chose between dropbear/openssh.
I think it is worth having a conversation to find out if when can make
it easier for users to create images, with a small number of knobs to turn.
I agree, your 4 items above make sense and we could create a set of
tasks that can be use it as building blocks, I think that
task-core-basic could be a starting point for that.
We did work to enable the selection of either openssh/dropbear but at an
IMAGE_FEATURE level, not as a DISTRO_FEATURE or virtual.
Let's see what you come up with for your tasks and we can go from there.
Thanks
Sau!
Philip
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
