Re: [PATCH 0/2] Rework deployment of image artifacts

["'Jan Kiszka' via isar-users" <isar-users@googlegroups.com>]

On 17.04.26 16:15, Zhihang Wei wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/16/26 18:01, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 16.04.26 17:51, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 16.04.26 17:42, Zhihang Wei wrote:
>>>> Applied to next, thanks.
>>>>
>>> I am repeating myself: We broken the deployment API in v1.0. This series
>>> is breaking it once more, just differently (and rather unhandy for many
>>> downstream users).
>>>
>>> Are we truly sure now that this is the FINAL solution, or do we plan for
>>> n more API breakages?
>>>
>> But let's a assume we keep it like this:
>>
>> What is the plan for a v1.0.1 hotfix release? I'm seeing other patches
>> being merged. Some would qualify to be part as well, another one is
>> harmless but not a hotfix. So I'm asking before things possibly move on
>> further. At least some users here are waiting to adopt v1.0.x.
>>
>> Jan
>>
> We have tested the prefixed DTB approach on our downstreams and it
> works without major issues.

You likely have nothing like the deployment scripts for LAVA
(isar-cip-core, xenomai-images). It breaks them, and we need extra logic
because of the mangled names and paths.

> 
> Regarding splitting TMPDIRs: this would break at least one of our
> downstreams. We have a setup with two multiconfigs — one for rescue
> (with its own rootfs, kernel, etc.) and another regular one which
> depends on the rescue one and needs to consume its deployed artifacts.
> Splitting TMPDIRs is not viable in this case.
> 

This has already been identified as problem, yes. OE does not use it
either, only few downstreams. We are apparently overusing mc: or the
deployment folder here.

> 
> As for the release plan: we would like to target v1.1 rather than a
> v1.0.1 hotfix, with the API expected to remain stable for some period.

We must fix this soon or 1.0 will remain a no-go version. It will then
happen the opposite of what "1.0" was aiming at: to signal maturity.

> I propose that if a final solution can be found quickly, we hold v1.1
> until it is merged. Otherwise, v1.1 should be based on the prefixed DTB
> patch.
> 
> We do have a new proposal for the "final solution". Let me send it
> under v6 DTB discussion.
> 

I'm looking into it.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Foundational Technologies
Linux Expert Center

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "isar-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to isar-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/isar-users/cfbbdaac-88ac-4dc5-8b9d-2549a67f0459%40siemens.com.