[agl-discussions] OS/Common Libs Recipe Development

Tadao Tanikawa tanikawa.tadao at jp.panasonic.com
Thu Sep 3 13:12:23 UTC 2015 

Hi Ibe-san,

You have to check dependency more and check where we really
need to add them to our packagegroup or not, before thinking about
which packagegroups is good or not.

For example, thinking about 'iptables_1.4.21.bb' here.

This package is installed because it is required ONLY by "connman".

You can confirm this by result of grep to package-depends.dot
of genivi-demo-platform (for poter), like these.
   "connman-dbg" -> "iptables"
   "connman-vpn" -> "iptables"
   "connman-tools" -> "iptables"
   "connman-locale" -> "iptables"
   "connman-dev" -> "iptables"
   "connman-tests" -> "iptables"
   "connman-client" -> "iptables"
   "connman" -> "iptables"
   "connman-staticdev" -> "iptables"
   "connman-doc" -> "iptables"

"connman" is required by packagegroup-specific-component-p1 of meta-ivi.

"connman"'s recipes is in poky/meta/recipes-connectivity/connman and
there is DEPENDS to "iptables" in connman.inc which included by connman_%.bb.

So, if connectivity subsystem required "connman", "iptables" is automatically
installed by metadata of connman without adding it to our packagegroups.

That's why I don't think that we need to add "iptables" to any
agl's packagegroups.

Please investigate rest packages which you listed before and it's recipes
already in poky/meta.

Regards,
Tadao Tanikawa

(2015/09/03 21:21), Kengo Ibe wrote:
>   Hi Tanikawa-san, Jonathan-san,
>
> I apologize for my delay to adding the 10 packages.
>
> Janathan-san, Tadano-san, and I discussed about OS and Common Libs in
> the e-mail.
> And, we are thinking that these should be added to
> "packagegroup-agl-core-os-commonlibs.bb".
>
> ============from our mail============
> If I understand that linked E-mail correctly, you intend to add 10
> packages to the packagegroup "packagegroup-ivi-common-os-commonlibs.bb".
> Searching for those files by name, it looks like all those packages
> exist in poky.
>
> It is my understanding that the layer meta-ivi-common is meant for
> packages that are ivi-specific, but ought to be common in all IVI
> distributions.
>
> I would suggest that they fit better in the packagegroup
> "packagegroup-agl-core-os-commonlibs.bb" found at
> './meta-agl/recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-agl-core-os-commonlibs.bb'
> Also, I would prefer if these patches were submitted via the gerrit
> (gerrit.automotivelinux.org), though if that proves difficult, I will be
> happy to review those patches over E-mail.
> ========================
>
> Could you please tell me advice about which is better
> "packagegroup-agl-core-os-commonlibs.bb” or
> "packagegroup-ivi-common-os-commonlibs.bb”?
> And, please share a policy of packagegroups, if you have.
>
> By the way, I confirmed that the above two cases can build with the 10
> packages by bitbake, correctly.
>
>
> Best regards,
> ibe
>
> 2015-08-21 12:26 GMT+09:00 Kengo Ibe <kengo.ibe at linuxfoundation.org>:
>>   Hi Tanikawa-san,
>>
>> Thank you for preparing new packagegroup.
>>   I'll try to add these packages since next week because I'm on an
>> business trip until this weekend.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Kengo Ibe.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015-08-19 16:40 GMT+09:00 Tadao Tanikawa <tanikawa.tadao at jp.panasonic.com>:
>>> Hi Ibe-san
>>>
>>> (2015/08/19 16:22), Kengo Ibe wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (3) Dependency of the 10 files
>>>>>> We attached documents about dependency of them.
>>>>
>>>> I apologize for having forgetting to attach the document, I sent it
>>>> vis this email.
>>>> The below 10 files are ready to commit to main branch.
>>>>    1. glib-networking_2.38.0.bb
>>>>    2. iptables_1.4.21.bb
>>>>    3. parted_3.1.bb
>>>>    4. procps_3.2.8.bb
>>>>    5. quota_4.01.bb
>>>>    6. tcp-wrappers_7.6.bb
>>>>    7. unzip_6.0.bb
>>>>    8. libcgroup_0.41.bb
>>>>    9. os-release.bb
>>>> 10. libarchive_3.1.2.bb
>>>
>>>
>>> Please add these packages to packageroup in meta-ivi-common (new layer I
>>> will add soon).
>>>
>>> There is new packagegroup 'packagegroup-ivi-common-os-commonlibs.bb'
>>> at meta-agl/meta-ivi-common/recipes-core/packagegroups
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tadao Tanikawa
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards.
>>>> Kengo Ibe.
>>>>
>>>> 2015-08-19 4:19 GMT+09:00 Walt Miner <wminer at linuxfoundation.org>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello Ibe-san,
>>>>> Thank you for the analysis. What is the next step?
>>>>>
>>>>> Walt
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Kengo Ibe
>>>>> <kengo.ibe at linuxfoundation.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Hi everyone
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I and Tadano-san tried to sort out recipe files of OS/CommonLib layer
>>>>>> and check some files.
>>>>>> The 23 files are included in current package list as OS/Common Libs of
>>>>>> AGL Package Group,
>>>>>> but not included in the agl-image-ivi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then, we checked that 10 files related OS/CommonLib can be submitted
>>>>>> to main branch,
>>>>>> when these are needed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following are the details:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) Sorted out 23 files of OS/CommonLib layer
>>>>>> 5 files: systemd related files.
>>>>>> Because how to handle systemd and sysvinit is under discussion, we
>>>>>> don't check them, yet.
>>>>>> 7 files: Already included the agl-image-ivi, as different version or
>>>>>> duplicate files.
>>>>>> 1 file: Fuse package.
>>>>>> It’s included in GENIVI layer and, how to handle GENIVI layer is under
>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>> We don’t check them, yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -> We decided to check the remaining 10 files that might be needed in
>>>>>> future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) Checked the 10 files to be included in poky
>>>>>> Procedure is to add package name into below recipe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ##OEROOT##/../meta-agl/meta-agl/recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-agl-core-os-commonlibs.bb
>>>>>>
>>>>>> e.g. case of adding glib-networking
>>>>>> =============================
>>>>>> RDEPENDS_${PN} += "\
>>>>>> 　　    glib-networking "
>>>>>> =============================
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -> We checked that the 10 files can be added into agl-image-ivi,
>>>>>> properly.
>>>>>>      When these are needed, we can submit it to main branch, smoothly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (3) Dependency of the 10 files
>>>>>> We attached documents about dependency of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -> We think there is no complicated dependency, as of now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> best regards
>>>>>> Kengo Ibe
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> automotive-discussions mailing list
>>>>>> automotive-discussions at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/automotive-discussions
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Walt Miner
>>>>> Engineering Project Manager
>>>>> The Linux Foundation
>>>>> mobile: +1.847.502.7087
>>>>> skype: vstarwalt
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit us at:
>>>>> automotive.linuxfoundation.org
>>>>> www.linuxfoundation.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> automotive-discussions mailing list
>>>>> automotive-discussions at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/automotive-discussions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> automotive-discussions mailing list
> automotive-discussions at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/automotive-discussions
>

More information about the automotive-discussions mailing list