Re: [PATCH] Factor out meta-examples

[Baurzhan Ismagulov <ibr@radix50.net>]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 02:39:13PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > I've heard about this only offline. I support the idea of not having to delete
> 
> Surely not. First, it's what I was proposing (and patching towards) for
> ELC-NA 17. After that, all Siemens' major patches go in this direction,
> all our products are built this way. No one should be surprised by now.

It wasn't to say anyone was surprised. Alex's wish is to see the design
principles we elaborate below (what goes where) formulated on this list.


> > The same for machines. Could we define anything more specific than "arbitrary,
> > reasonable minimum"?
> 
> Only if we also test that. QEMU machines are both good test candidates
> and good examples. I think they could stay with the core for the sake of
> testability.

Ok, so for now, it's still "arbitrary, reasonable minimum".


> But we may also extract their architectural bits so that
> you could reuse that definitions for own machines and have QEMU
> instances in the example/testing layer.

Hmm, in that case, wouldn't it be a pure rename action? meta -> meta-isar,
meta-isar -> meta-example? Or do you suggest to move Debian configs to meta?


> > This is simple, stupid. Even if there are use cases for meta alone: If we
> > declare machines and Debian suite configs as the core, is there value in
> > maintaining the separation of meta and meta-isar?
> 
> Exactly. I can rework my patch in this direction, split it up, whatever.
> 
> Besides that this general question of meta vs. metat-isar was nagging me
> for a while, the current motivation to do something is to have the
> reusable custom kernel recipes and an exemplary recipe that use them in
> separate layers.

My suggestion would be still "small steps": Review and merge reusable custom
kernel in meta-isar, then reach the consensus on what goes where and do the
complete move in a separate series.


With kind regards,
Baurzhan.