Restructure packagegroups #770
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
lumag
requested review from
quic-vkraleti,
ricardosalveti,
sbanerjee-quic and
ndechesne
as code owners
|
Ideally this should be merged after #771 |
Test jobs for commit e9043c3 |
lumag
force-pushed
the
restructure-packagegroups
branch
from
e9043c3 to
b31cb09
Compare
Test jobs for commit b31cb09 |
|
Looks good to me. However it needs to be rebases to address merge conflicts |
It makes sense to define per-machine packagegroups in a central way. Currently we are defining only the firmware packages (and include Hexagon DSP libraries in that packagegroup). In preparation to defining other per-machine packagegroups rename packagegroup recipes and adjust package names accordingly. Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <[email protected]>
It makes sense to include firmware packages into the initramfs. At the same time it mostly does't make sense to include DSP libraries into the initramfs or other similar small images. Mass-split the single firmware packagegroup into two, -firmware and -hexagon-dsp-binaries in order to allow for a tighter control of the installed packages. Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <[email protected]>
Since Hexagon DSP binaries are no longer included into the firmware packagegroups, they are not being pulled into the initramfs. Drop BAD_RECOMMENDATIONS from the recipe. Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <[email protected]>
Since Hexagon DSP binaries are no longer included into the firmware packagegroups, they are not being pulled into the initramfs. Drop them from the BAD_RECOMMENDATIONS in the recipe. Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <[email protected]>
The initramfs-firmware-mega-image is a special include-all image, created to catch possible file and/or package conflicts. Pull in Hexagon DSP binaries into the image too (restoring the status quo before the packagegroup split). Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <[email protected]>
lumag
force-pushed
the
restructure-packagegroups
branch
from
b31cb09 to
43d876b
Compare
|
Rebased |
Test jobs for commit 43d876b |
ricardosalveti
approved these changes
Feb 24, 2025
ndechesne
approved these changes
Feb 24, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
It makes sense to define several packagegroups for each of the boards:
Restructure current recipes by splitting the DSP binaries to separate packagegroups. It makes it easier to add per-board packagegroups in future.