[agl-discussions] AGL image stability, stress and functionality tests proposal

[Andersson, Gunnar]

Hi AGL devs !

First, I'm happy to see that systemd seems to be your consensus now
:-)

A bit of top posting going on before so I hope I managed to quote somewhat
correctly here:

Previously, Kevron Rees <tripzero.kev at gmail.com>:
>> init.d?

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 9:59 AM Manuel Bachmann <manuel.bachmann at iot.bzh>
wrote:
>
> Yes, this is what I get when I build the "agl-demo-platform" image from
> https://git.automotivelinux.org/gerrit/gitweb?p=AGL/meta-agl-demo.git
>
> Obviously sysvinit-based ; maybe a systemd image exists somewhere, but
> I don't know of that.
>

Earlier:
2015-09-21 19:20 GMT+02:00 Kevron Rees <tripzero.kev at gmail.com>:
>> What does agl build from?  Obviously not a recent version of poky?

I'm not sure that the poky version itself is the problem, if
you're looking for why systemd is not used as init system that is.

I found :
http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/1.8/mega-manual/mega-manual.html#selecting
-an-initialization-manager

and here is how GENIVI does it at the moment:
http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-ivi/tree/meta-ivi/conf/distr
o

So we can see that for the current GENIVI builds the basis is
defined in meta-ivi (GENIVI baseline) which itself provides very
basic images, one per GENIVI platform release.  And then the GDP
layer adds new things on top of that and reuses most of the
basic definition.  GDP defines a new image which includes
baseline package groups, as well as some new package groups.

That setup seems to be similar to your meta-agl vs. meta-agl-demo
setup.  

Meta-ivi is also defining a modified poky-ivi DISTRO as you
can see on the link above.  It seems to be a Yocto/OE best practice to
define a distro layer to include some of those very fundamental
decisions, such as choice of init system.  Those things are then not
overridden by mistake somewhere else.  If poky distro is not giving you
that out of the box, maybe a distro definition is what you need?  That
in no way forbids using poky as a "distro" in the sense that all those
packages that build and work correctly together are reused.  Heavy
reuse of poky is of course what GENIVI does too, for the Yocto-based
builds (there are also Baserock based builds).  Oh, and of course
commercial OSV builds, that I can't comment on how they are built up.

Previously, Tizen-IVI was an example that did not reuse poky as much
- the stated reason IIRC that there were security related attributes
and settings that were needed to be added to all components anyhow.

Of course if AGL decided to base the distribution and image on a
GENIVI baseline that's another alternative which avoids redefining this
stuff.  Maybe it's not precisely what you want, I don't know, but some
of the feedback and additional pressure we would get from
additional usage would likely increase the quality of the GENIVI
baselines as well.  In turn, GENIVI maintains recipes for all
components created by GENIVI created (and some adopted).
A win-win it seems to me.
If that's not what you are looking for, I still hope we succeed
in avoiding fragmentation through the common layer instead.  (I'm
still missing the independent and non-branded location for that
layer, which I think would really facilitate adoption).

HTH, and Best Regards

- Gunnar

--
Gunnar Andersson
Lead Architect, GENIVI Alliance
Infotainment, Volvo Car Corporation