On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Mark Hatle <mark.ha...@windriver.com> wrote: >> if we rename tasks to package groups, and there's a question as to how >> IMAGE_FEATURES scales - should every task be represented in there or only >> a >> select list? Would we be better off not trying to bring any tasks in via >> IMAGE_FEATURES at all and mostly leave that to control post-processing >> (e.g. >> package-management, debug-tweaks, etc.)? > > > I'd certainly prefer that images were limited to selecting software from > task (group) recipes only, and not providing their own. An image should be > able to change the selection based on an "image feature" or similar > configuration, but the underlying tasks/groups, recipes, etc should all be > 'generic' to a given distribution configuration.
The package groups which can be added in IMAGE_FEATURES don't have to be (and I'd argue against it anyway) defined in the image. For Mentor, we define them in our distro configuration. That said, what we use them for is basically the same thing the tasks in oe-core/meta-oe already provide, so we're looking to transition away from that method to what upstream is using (tasks, or whatever we end up using at the end of this discussion). -- Christopher Larson clarson at kergoth dot com Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus Maintainer - Tslib Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
