Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] introduce isar-image class

[Baurzhan Ismagulov <ibr@radix50.net>]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 11:51:57PM -0700, chombourger@gmail.com wrote:
> That's great to know, I was wondering if we had some guidelines on what 
> should go to meta vs meta-isar

meta is the generic one ("Isar itself") and meta-isar is a demo one that may be
used as a template for your product.


> We will probably need to document this somewhere and introduce some 
> mechanisms to have our CI jobs check if isar/meta is buildable without 
> isar/meta-isar

That would be a good litmus test for meta vs. meta-isar decisions. Currently,
we don't have an image in meta.


> In the short term, I can amend the patch series to move the class to 
> isar/meta

If isar-image.bbclass would help creating product images, it's indeed worth
having in meta.


> I believe we could also place isar-image-base there but leave 
> isar-image-debug in isar/meta-isar since the definition of a debug image we 
> have there appears to be just an example

Originally, isar-image-base was also just an example reusable by copy-pasting.
If isar-image.bbclass goes to meta and isar-image-base.bb becomes a two-liner,
it would make sense to include the latter in meta as well. That would allow CI
testing of meta alone. I'd keep isar-image-debug.bb alongside
isar-image-base.bb, separating those would be unhandy.

Regarding machine support, one approach could be supporting all Debian QEMU
targets in meta, leaving the rest in meta-isar. I'm in favor of adding new
boards to meta-isar, since people end up implementing them in their own repos.
In the long term, if meta-isar grows, we could consider moving it into a
separate repo and renaming e.g. meta -> meta-isar, meta-isar -> meta-isar-demo
if that is more intuitive.


With kind regards,
Baurzhan.