On 14-08-01 03:30 AM, Alexandru Vaduva wrote:
Bruce that is actually the best solution, but I personally did not know it is
possible and permitted by the Yocto project git maintainers.
That is a really good news.
Definitely something we can do. There are other yocto ecosystem
layers that also have configuration and branches that they use in
the kernel tree, so we'll be following a model that is established
and works pretty well.
I'm going to be out of the office for a bit over the next couple
of weeks, but I'll monitor the list and help where possible.
Cheers,
Bruce
Alex
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Ashfield [mailto:bruce.ashfi...@windriver.com]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 7:26 AM
To: akuster; Alexandru Vaduva; Joe MacDonald
Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org
Subject: Re: [yocto] [OE-core] Carrier Grade layer proposal
On 2014-07-31, 9:30 PM, akuster wrote:
Bruce,
So how / where do I start on the kernel part?
How's this for a bad start of an answer .. it depends. Let me point out an
example to follow, since that's probably the easiest way to get started.
If you look at the linux-yocto-rt recipe, that shows how to use the linux-yocto repo, and
build a particular branch (or set of branches) with a configuration that is specific to
those branches. i.e. it is a "kernel type" (we have standard, preempt-rt and
tiny at the moment).
To test your changes, and configuration fragments, linux-yocto works like any
other recipe. You can specify an existing branch like standard/base (see how
linux-yocto-tiny does just that), and then add patches and .cfg files to the
SRC_URI.
The kernel will be patched, and the configuration applied to the build.
Once you are happy with the content, the changes can be merged to a dedicated
branch (i.e. standard/cgl) and the meta data put into the meta branch of the
repo.
From that point on, the recipe only needs to specify that branch and you no
longer need to patch, or explicitly reference the meta data.
You are then in sync with the LTSI/linux-yocto version, and the branch will get
stable updates, bug fixes, BSP support, etc.
Bruce
- Armin
On 07/22/2014 08:58 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
On 14-07-22 11:54 AM, akuster wrote:
Alexandru,
Regarding a few packages in category C&D.
I have latest samhain building as well as grsecurity (pax patches
applied against 3.14.12) in a branch in my meta-security tree. I
have a bit more testing to do before I was going to post them.
And on this note, we should consider the kernel parts and see if
getting them into a common location is a good idea.
We already have the linux-yocto tree, and it tracks LTSI, has CVE and
-stable tracking, and is maintained to support the set of reference
boards.
Creating yet more reference kernel trees doesn't help our goal of
fewer trees and a discrete set of kernel versions.
Just something to consider.
Cheers,
Bruce
grsecurity and samhain aren't CGL specific and they maybe belong in
a more generalize layer? just a thought.
regards,
Armin
On 07/22/2014 03:52 AM, Alexandru Vaduva wrote:
Hello Joe,
Here at Enea we are preparing the steps needed for publishing the
layer on the open embedded meta layers initiative:
http://layers.openembedded.org/layerindex/branch/master/layers/
For this we started working at a web page that should contain all
the relevant information regarding meta-cgl. It will be available
in a couple of weeks. Until then the layer will be available
internally and the patches should be submitted as the README
states: on the eneali...@lists.enea.com mailing list. We will try
to make the switch to Open Embedded mailing list as quick as
possible.
Regarding the other B, C and D packages that we will try to add
into the meta-cgl layer, I will post this information below, but
keep in mind that this information will also be available on the web page.
Category B packages:
- ifenslave
- evlog
- crash
- mipv6-daemon-umip
- openl2tp
Category C&D packages:
- drbd
- grsecurity
- logcheck
- makedumpfile
- numactl
- ocfs2-tools
- pam_passwdqc
- samhain
- ltt-usertrace
- ftrace
The above lists correspond with only the P1 requirements that we
try to fulfill for the moment. If there are any questions and/or
suggestions regarding this CGL initialtive please address them to
me and I will try to offer a response in the shortest time
possible.
Thanks,
Alex
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe MacDonald [mailto:j...@deserted.net]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 10:58 PM
To: Alexandru Vaduva
Cc: Jeff Osier-Mixon; yocto@yoctoproject.org
Subject: Re: [yocto] [OE-core] Carrier Grade layer proposal
Hey Alex,
I've been away from this for a bit but now I'm getting time to look
at it again and I was wondering if you had any deeper level of
detail you could share about the work going on in meta-cgl.
Obviously since this is a new registration and one that will look
rather different from all of the other CGL registrations currently,
those of us in the CGL workgroup were quite interested to see this
happen. Personally I'm also interested in this since it's the kind
of thing I've been doing for a long time now and if I can, I'd like
to help out. In particular, if you've got a list of, say, the
category B+ items, that might be something I can do that will be
independent of your work on the more active cat-A stuff. OTOH,
cat-A is easy to work on since those are the items I saw when I was
working with meta-cgl a month or so back. I know you guys are
focused on your part of it, but if you had sort of a "here's how to help us"
guide, that'd be awesome.
Also, I probably missed it, but is the intent to use either the
yocto list or the oe list for all meta-cgl discussions, or do you
have a dedicated list we can sign up for? I see you have guidance
for sending submissions to meta-cgl, but is that a list that's open
to the community, or is it an internal alias / distribution list for Enea?
Thanks,
-J.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Alexandru Vaduva
<alexandru.vad...@enea.com> wrote:
Hello Jeff,
The errors are package related.
Meta-cgl can be seen as a non BSP specific layer (it can be viewed
as the LSB from poky).
I already started fixing a number, of the already existing errors
and the patches will be added upstream after proper testing.
I will continue the bug fixing and package integration (into the
core-image-cgl image) process and after that is finished I will
continue with the Category B packages.
I will also try to keep you guys informed about the latest
updates, mainly on the YPTM, but for those who cannot wait that
much, there is the Git repository with which they can interact:
http://git.enea.com/git/?p=linux/meta-cgl.git;a=summary
Have a good day,
Alex
-----Original Message-----
From: jefro....@gmail.com [mailto:jefro....@gmail.com] On Behalf
Of Jeff Osier-Mixon
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 9:22 PM
To: Alexandru Vaduva
Subject: Re: [OE-core] Carrier Grade layer proposal
Thanks, Alex.
Others on the mailing lists, if you have any comments on the
contents of this new layer, please mention them on this thread.
Re compilation errors, were they specific to a BSP or were they
general errors in the packages?
thanks
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Alexandru Vaduva
<alexandru.vad...@enea.com> wrote:
Hello Jeff,
The available layer is a work in progress.
For the moment we have done an internal mapping of the packages
needed inside meta-cgl layer. The mapping is done as following:
A. Requirement that map against package/packages with recipes
that already exists in Yocto
A1. Requirement that map against package/packages with recipes
already existing in meta-enea
A2. Requirement that map against package/packages with recipes
that exists in Yocto (but not in meta-enea) B. Requirement that
map against package/packages without any recipe C. Requirement
does not directly map against package/packages and needs some
investigation.
D. Requirement that no solution have been found after a more
detailed investigation.
When the release was made available on the public repository, the
packages from the A1 and A2 were integrated, a bunch of them with
compilation errors:
- lksctp-tools
- openais
- pacemaker
- openhpi
- open-iscsi-user
- open-iscsi-kernel
- libcap-ng
- cluster-glue
- cluster-resource-agents
The activity on the meta-cgl was resumed today and those build
and integration errors will be dealt next.
On the longer run we will try to create recipes and/or fulfill
all the other requirements from the class B, C, and D.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions.
Alex
From: Jon Aldama
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 1:07 PM
To: Alexandru Vaduva; Cosmin Moldoveanu; Jenny Andersson; David
Nyström
Cc: Daniel Bornaz; Adrian Dudau
Subject: RE: Carrier Grade layer proposal
Roger that! Thanks Alexandru!
From: Alexandru Vaduva
Sent: den 27 juni 2014 11:43
To: Jon Aldama; Cosmin Moldoveanu; Jenny Andersson; David Nyström
Cc: Daniel Bornaz; Adrian Dudau
Subject: RE: Carrier Grade layer proposal
Hello Jon,
We will first have an internal meeting on Monday and after that I
will offer an answer to Jeff.
Alex
From: Jon Aldama
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 12:32 PM
To: Cosmin Moldoveanu; Jenny Andersson; David Nyström
Cc: Alexandru Vaduva; Daniel Bornaz; Adrian Dudau
Subject: RE: Carrier Grade layer proposal
Thank you Cosmin,
Alexandru, could you please respond Jeff at the mailing list?
(see down
below)
Cheers
Jon
From: Cosmin Moldoveanu
Sent: den 27 juni 2014 10:59
To: Jenny Andersson; Jon Aldama; David Nyström
Cc: Alexandru Vaduva; Daniel Bornaz; Adrian Dudau
Subject: RE: Carrier Grade layer proposal
Hi,
Alexandru Vaduva will be main responsible for interfacing with
community on meta-cgl topic. He will also attend Yocto Technical
Meetings whenever necessary from now on.
BR,
/Cosmin
From: Jenny Andersson
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 10:32 AM
To: Jon Aldama; David Nyström; Cosmin Moldoveanu
Cc: Valentin Cobelea
Subject: RE: Carrier Grade layer proposal
Hi Cosmin,
How took over after Valentin left Enea? Could someone in your
team respond.
Thanks,
Jenny
From: Jon Aldama
Sent: den 27 juni 2014 09:28
To: David Nyström; Jenny Andersson
Cc: Valentin Cobelea
Subject: FW: Carrier Grade layer proposal
David, Jenny,
Will any of you answer this?
BTW, have you managed to file the Yocto compatibility application?
Regards
Jon
From: Osier-mixon, Jeffrey [mailto:jeffrey.osier-mi...@intel.com]
Sent: den 26 juni 2014 20:36
To: David Nyström; davide.ri...@windriver.com;
challi...@gmail.com; teodor.boborn...@windriver.com; Valentin
Cobelea; chase.mau...@ti.com; Jon Aldama;
philip.balis...@gmail.com; kevin_mcco...@mentor.com;
akus...@mvista.com; jason.wes...@windriver.com;
richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org;
hui.g...@huawei.com; john_che...@mentor.com;
jeffrey.osier-mi...@intel.com
Cc: Philip Balister
Subject: YP: Carrier Grade layer proposal
Hi all - this is a simple followup to our meeting at ELC
regarding a meta-cgl layer, proposed by Enea.
The plan was to create a list of recipes to be included, and to
start a discussion on the mailing list.There is a thread on the
list from back in April, but I don't see anything more recent
than that. Has there been any progress?
thanks
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
openembedded-c...@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
--
Jeff Osier-Mixon @Intel
Yocto Project Community Manager http://yoctoproject.org
--
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
--
Joe MacDonald
:wq
--
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
