On 27/06/2012 17:27, Paul Eggleton wrote:
On Wednesday 27 June 2012 16:22:09 Jack Mitchell wrote:
I think this is a fantastic idea in general and if I remember correctly
someone from Linaro was attempting to do something similar to this the
other day - so I can't only be me who would appreciate something like this.
Indeed, I saw Marcin's earlier thread - at the time I wasn't far enough along
to reply unfortunately (was just an item on my todo list), but at least
there's interest :)
The one issue I have (initially) is why should it be limited to the
Apache web server? There are a couple of good web servers out there
which lend themselves much more to an embedded style development than
(IMO) the bloat that is Apache.
For example:
Lighttpd (already in core)
nginx
Hiawatha (my personal favourite - I have a recipe I already use in
conjunction with PHP)
I agree Apache is not something you would typically consider to be embedded-
friendly, however if you've already got something web-based that is built on
top of Apache or relies on functionality that only Apache can provide, and you
want to integrate that into an embedded product, then nothing else will really
suffice.
However I do think there's scope to include these other alternatives
particularly if the layer turns into more of a generic web server layer, but I
can't commit to maintaining (specifically, updating and testing) the additional
recipes on my own.
I would be happy to contribute the hiawatha recipe (it's just simple
cmake job), but I understand your earlier comment on standalone PHP as
it is indeed a minefield. I tried to update it some weeks ago and failed
miserably.
Possibly just do your part and let people send in patches against the
layer as is done with meta-oe?
I also remember someone from WindRiver posted recently regarding a
meta-networking layer, which I also thought was a great idea if not only
for (in my use case) tftp/net-snmp support all rolled up and supported.
Maybe this could be a layer with that "section"?
i.e.
meta-networking
meta-webserver (meta-l*mp?)
recipes-*
recipes-*
meta-*
....
....
Whenever a new layer is introduced there's always the question of where it
should be physically located. I worry more about the confusion that multi-
level layers cause - particularly when they're named the same thing - than I
do about multiple repositories, but I realise others have different viewpoints.
If they are in separate repositories there's still nothing stopping them being
used together.
I do agree that layers within layers is a bit confusing, however the
earlier proposed meta-networking included having some of the
applications in this proposed layer too. If this was instead, then it's
fine, but if it's as well then it could get confusing.
A possible compromise could be a git sub-module for meta-lamp inside
meta-networking, or at least a file containing the meta-lamp location
and highlighting its availability?
Cheers,
Paul
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
