**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Wed Mar 23 02:59:59 2016 Mar 23 10:34:09 "look at digi manual (i.e. "just add bsp changes in local.conf")" Mar 23 10:34:20 I'm glad that one is on the list :) Mar 23 12:39:10 I am trying to decide if I am going to build an OS by just using OE+Bitbake+(target specific layers, e.g. meta-intel) or if I should start with Yocto. I am failing to understand what benefits I get from yocto. From what I understand it makes building a deployable image easier, but I have not seen it what ways. Mar 23 12:39:19 Can anyone shed some light on this? Mar 23 12:46:01 riz__: basically you get the bit more polished poky distribution as a good starting point Mar 23 12:46:46 Is it that poky has some extra work into it that glues the pieces together? Mar 23 12:46:51 Or makes it more stable? Mar 23 12:48:42 i'd say, its a known good starting point. you can basically check it out and build without adding anything on your own. starting right off oe+bitbake itself needs a little more work and knowledge, but isn't better or worse by definition Mar 23 12:52:52 Thanks Mar 23 13:39:37 CroftonIwork: Are you around? Mar 23 13:50:31 CroftonIroad: Or perhaps this one? Mar 23 14:26:21 eengie, I a, around, but travelling, Mar 23 14:26:29 going for coffee Mar 23 14:27:35 CroftonIroad I'm writing up a few blog posts as I push out this layer using your kit. The references to the manual and company are easy, but I'm curious if you have a preference of my linking/mentioning you. Mar 23 14:55:42 that is fine Mar 23 15:38:26 abelloni: digi manual? Mar 23 15:38:27 * kergoth yawns Mar 23 16:09:37 as rburton pointed out, there seems to be 3 ways on opkg to compare version: Mar 23 16:10:01 1) opkg-compare-version.sh (opkg-utils): old and broken Mar 23 16:10:21 2) opkg-compare-version (opkg-utils) Mar 23 16:10:43 3) opkg-compare-version inside opkg itself: broken Mar 23 16:11:10 I am leaning towards removing 1 and 3, leaving only the standalone util on opkg-utils Mar 23 16:11:29 any objections? Mar 23 16:11:43 personally (3) seems sensible Mar 23 16:11:52 why have a standalone util when opkg can do it directly Mar 23 16:12:00 i mean, fixing (3) Mar 23 16:12:42 i can see an argument for 2, if opkg used it too, just to make it possible to compare using opkg's version comparison algorithm in external scripts, but i'm not sure there are any usages of it, so 3) makes perfect sense too Mar 23 16:12:46 so tired Mar 23 16:13:43 kergoth, it is mroning :) Mar 23 16:13:49 morning :) Mar 23 16:13:52 so yeah, I am between 2 and 3...in my mind opkg-utils provides stuff that is not part of what a package manager should do, like building an index, or comparing versions Mar 23 16:13:54 meh Mar 23 16:14:21 yeah, if it's going to be a standalone thing, then it should be in opkg itselfa nd used by opkg itself, for consistency, otherwise it should be in opkg itself Mar 23 16:14:53 adelcast: comparing versions is so useful and having it not part of opkg is just asking for algorithm changes to be in one place and not the other Mar 23 16:15:02 fwiw, dpkg has compare-versions built in Mar 23 16:15:48 ah, I didn't realize that Mar 23 16:16:51 rburton: ok, fair enough, I think I'll go with 3) and pull your patches in...then I will delete 1) and 2). Mar 23 16:19:25 --compare-versions Compare version numbers - see below. Mar 23 16:19:28 is dpkg's syntax Mar 23 16:19:39 Comparison operators for --compare-versions are: Mar 23 16:19:39 lt le eq ne ge gt (treat empty version as earlier than any version); Mar 23 16:19:39 lt-nl le-nl ge-nl gt-nl (treat empty version as later than any version); Mar 23 16:19:39 < << <= = >= >> > (only for compatibility with control file syntax). Mar 23 16:19:54 ah, nice Mar 23 16:28:27 I see, yeah, the opkg internal version only understands <= < > >= = << >> Mar 23 16:29:35 shouldn't be too hard to make it work using dpkg's syntax too Mar 23 17:31:52 Given that meta-qt5 is built in properly, can core-image-minimal run Qt GUI applications with windows/pushbuttons/graphics/etc? Mar 23 17:32:22 Or is it better to start with something like core-image-sato? Mar 23 17:32:55 including a layer doesnt' magically add its packages to your images Mar 23 17:33:18 so neither will run them unless you add the packages for your qt5 apps to those images, or add the qt packages to those images Mar 23 17:33:54 (core-image-sato doesn't include qt either) Mar 23 17:33:59 at mentor we have a layer that bbappends the images we support to obey a variable in local.conf to control the qt5 package inclusion, perhaps something along those lines would be of use. or you could just add them with EXTRA_IMAGE_FEATURES Mar 23 17:34:03 Well I mean along with doing the necessary IMAGE_INSTALL_append's Mar 23 17:34:26 core-image-minimal is console. if all you want to do is run command line qt5 apps, that might do Mar 23 17:34:44 No, I actually want a GUI Mar 23 17:35:06 OR just running Qt5_CinematicExperience Mar 23 17:35:10 for example Mar 23 17:36:04 Now what is the difference between EXTRA_IMAGE_FEATURES and IMAGE_INSTALL_append? Mar 23 17:36:37 erm, i meant CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL, my mistake Mar 23 17:37:01 CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL is specific to things that use CORE_IMAGE and was for neatness Mar 23 17:37:19 that and IMAGE_INSTALL_append will both work, just the other variable is an explicit hook intended for use by the user in local.conf, whereas the other ias more error prone. i.e. if you forget to use _append and use += instead, you could break any images using ?= for IMAGE_INSTALL Mar 23 17:37:43 * kergoth thinks we need more such hooks to improve usability and make it less easy to break the build :) Mar 23 17:38:25 So, if done properly, can core-image-minimal run a GUI and not just command line apps? Mar 23 17:39:07 if you want to basically add an entire gui to it, sure, but i don't really see the point, when other images already have one Mar 23 17:39:10 you're overloading its purpose Mar 23 17:39:19 more likely you'd want to just make your own image and include what you want.. Mar 23 17:39:36 folks overestimate the difficulty of creating an image. it's a recipe with a list of packages. Mar 23 17:39:42 trivial. you can even copy and paste another image Mar 23 17:40:04 OK. YEah, I was a bit intimidated to start that Mar 23 17:40:15 What image do you suggest to copy? Mar 23 17:40:18 :) that's pretty common Mar 23 17:40:39 I figured core-image-minimal was something you can use to build on as you like Mar 23 17:40:51 depends on your needs. the image names should describe their intended usage and purpose. if you need X11 or wayland/weston, you'll need to pick one that provides one of those as as tarting point, most likely Mar 23 17:40:52 Sort of like a platform Mar 23 17:40:52 you can Mar 23 17:40:57 but it's minimal by definition Mar 23 17:41:24 kergoth: gitpkgv/autorev don't really play along well with gitsm fetcher? Mar 23 17:41:29 adding 42 packages to it doesn't really make it minimal anymore. if oyu want to build on it that way, at least copy and rename it :) Mar 23 17:41:31 I just want to tinker in making an industrial GUI using Qt Mar 23 17:43:00 yocto-layer create riz 1; bitbake-layers add-layer meta-riz; mkdir -p meta-riz/recipes-core/images; cp ../poky/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal.bb meta-riz/recipes-core/images/riz-image.bb; vim meta-riz/recipes-core/images/riz-image.bb Mar 23 17:43:15 core-image-base may be a more sane baseline, however, as it includes the packages needed to support all the hardware features Mar 23 17:43:25 yeah minimal is called that for a reason Mar 23 17:43:39 start from base if you just want a console Mar 23 17:43:46 or -weston or -x11 if you want something that starts X Mar 23 17:43:51 erm, weston or x Mar 23 17:44:04 Awesome! Much more clarity now Mar 23 17:45:15 I wanted to use EGLFS, so I might have to remove x11 and wayland Mar 23 17:45:59 so that would be -base then Mar 23 17:46:16 https://github.com/kergoth/dotfiles/blob/master/scripts/bbnewlayer heh, got sick of typing it over and over Mar 23 17:46:35 Thanks! Mar 23 17:49:00 What you just posted would be mylayer.bb? Mar 23 18:59:55 * kergoth kicks his pkgconfig-cross recipe Mar 23 19:00:02 :) Mar 23 19:35:10 which is the best pratice to remove a .service from systemd ? The system_216 install serveral .services in my image. Mar 23 20:06:07 kergoth: What was that script you posted previously? I don't see where that fits into the new layer. Mar 23 20:29:50 riz__: did you bother reading it? it' sjust a convenience wrapper around the yoct-layer create and bitbake-layers add-layer commands when creating a new layer Mar 23 20:29:59 it's not content to put in the layer, that's up to you to create Mar 23 20:32:19 I did read it. It threw me off. ITs all new to me. Thanks Mar 23 20:46:15 is the stuff in openembedded-core still maintained? adding the layer to yocto does not really work and causes errors; I was lookin for alsa-utils and stuff like that Mar 23 21:02:48 Jin^eLD: erm... if by "adding it to yocto" you meant poky, poky already includes OE-Core Mar 23 21:03:08 Jin^eLD: so alsa-utils is already there Mar 23 21:03:27 bluelightning: I thought so too until the meadata finder tole me its in openembedded-core and not in meta-openembedded? Mar 23 21:03:52 Jin^eLD: meta-openembedded is separate... that's not included in poky, but OE-core is Mar 23 21:04:13 uhm Mar 23 21:04:58 ~/poky/poky$ find meta -name alsa-utils*bb Mar 23 21:04:59 meta/recipes-multimedia/alsa/alsa-utils_1.1.0.bb Mar 23 21:05:01 meta/recipes-multimedia/alsa/alsa-utils-scripts_1.1.0.bb Mar 23 21:05:04 oh cra Mar 23 21:05:06 p Mar 23 21:05:09 I am an idio Mar 23 21:05:12 t Mar 23 21:05:20 I had recieps-mulitmedia in BBMASK Mar 23 21:05:20 aren't we all Mar 23 21:05:21 doh Mar 23 21:05:36 Crofton :) **** ENDING LOGGING AT Thu Mar 24 02:59:58 2016