Minutes, OE-TSC meeting 14-Jul-2011

Jeff Osier-Mixon jefro at jefro.net
Fri Jul 15 18:34:30 UTC 2011

Minutes, OE-TSC meeting 14-Jul-2011

Attendees: Richard, Tom, Koen, Mark
Apologies: Khem
Notes: Jefro

action items marked with -->

01) choose a meeting chair


02) new topics

a) Rein Memory consumption of bitbake. (khem)

RP__: currently ~80mb per thread, which isn't bad
anyone who sees issues should smem bitbake and send to RP
clean build baseline would be useful
.. will message list with instructions: when bitbake is hogging, switch to
another shell and run smem
needs someone with the time/skill to work on it - continue
for lockfiles, in summary I think the lock contention is actually pretty

03) action items from last week

  --> patches appearing on oe-dev, khem to send email regarding "put stuff
in meta-oe"
no update

05) Status updates
      - elections
Richard re-elected
 next elections in 2 months
      - oe-core
yocto noticing some instability
 a period of stabilisation would be a good thing (eg siteinfo overhaul)
one big change is arch/tune file changes
  moved the core arch ABI stuff to the arch-<arch> files...
  and the tune-... files only contain specific core tunings
  need to keep posting discussions on the mailing list.. so people continue
to be reminded
  Tom begs for all the TSC folks to give oe-core, sans meta-oe/etc a little
love at times
  move architecture discussion to mailing list
RP working on multilib
 stabilisation effort: starting in mid August, we'll start to look for
patches with a
more stabilising viewpoint than features
 Effectively like the kernel does
At some point we will branch the release branch and then master can open for
features again
 collecting these into some kind of a "changes" document for oe -> oe-core
transition would be good
team will continue to work with devs who are working on features vs.
--> RP to discuss broad stabilisation & release plan on mailing list
      - bsp guidelines
larger issue is ownership and hosting
 RP open to people hosting layers on git.yp.org, but who sets things up
keeper of repos is Beth: RP acks, Beth sets up
--> Jefro/RP to work out & post to appropriate wikis
      - metadata layer splitting
replace with meta-oe, bsp layers, and "other layers"
      - infrastructure
hardware donations failed, Linux Foundation purchasing two appropriate
fray out next thurs

Raw Transcript

(1:01:13 PM) Jefro: agenda is at http://pastebin.com/wrZM31ME - wait another
few minutes for fray?
(1:02:16 PM) RP__: yes, we can give another few minutes
(1:02:27 PM) RP__: I can chair, its probably about my turn
(1:02:34 PM) RP__: any other agenda topics?
(1:02:59 PM) RP__: re: elections, I'm unsure when the next one is
(1:03:05 PM) koen: a round of applause for our newest emember?
(1:03:08 PM) koen: -e
(1:03:31 PM) RP__: koen: thanks :)
(1:03:31 PM) ***Jefro applauds at laptop, wife looks over at me suspiciously
(1:04:12 PM) RP__: bit of an anticlimax with one candidate but such is life
(1:04:14 PM) Tartarus: Jefro: after following you on G+, I doubt she's
suspicous at this point :)
(1:04:37 PM) Jefro: after 15 years, there is actually little that surprises
her, but I try my best
(1:05:06 PM) Tartarus: So no new topics from me, but I have status (yay!)
(1:05:22 PM) RP__: My parents have been married for 40+ years now and that
is just scary...
(1:06:18 PM) Jefro: Tartarus - status on an exiting topic, or personal?
(1:06:41 PM) RP__: we've given fray the few minutes - should we start?
(1:07:12 PM) ***koen likes how we don't hop from wiki to wiki in this
(1:07:15 PM) Jefro: I vote yes, being a nonvoting member
(1:07:49 PM) RP__: koen: there is only one wiki
(1:07:52 PM) RP__: ok, we can start
(1:08:03 PM) Tartarus: Jefro: oe-core status stuff
(1:08:03 PM) RP__: Any additional topics? I guess not
(1:08:14 PM) Jefro: Tartarus got it
(1:08:24 PM) RP__: So memory consumption
(1:08:29 PM) RP__: I did do some checks
(1:08:55 PM) RP__: It looks to me like the runtime overhead of whats in poky
is about a 160MB bb process of which ~50% is shared
(1:09:05 PM) koen: if username.startswith('k') { OOM }
(1:09:13 PM) RP__: so 80MB per thread which isn't so bad...
(1:09:34 PM) RP__: Now whether something is going on with more layers or
machines or something I don't know but its a useful baseline
(1:09:40 PM) RP__: (I was using smem for reference)
(1:09:54 PM) RP__: The next time someone has bitbake being a pig, send me
the smem output...
(1:10:00 PM) RP__: just for interest
(1:10:20 PM) RP__: comparison from a clean build for bonus marks
(1:10:29 PM) RP__: Anything else on memory?
(1:10:37 PM) RP__: Obviously its an ongoing thing...
(1:10:37 PM) Tartarus: RP__: can you wiki up or something how to get smem to
dump what you want?
(1:11:00 PM) RP__: Tartarus: "smem" gives something usable to start with
(1:11:12 PM) Tartarus: RP__: So, just smem bitbake thing-that-is-a-hog
(1:11:14 PM) RP__: ballpark numbers at least
(1:11:20 PM) Tartarus: | mail rp at lf
(1:11:21 PM) Tartarus: :)
(1:11:44 PM) RP__: Tartarus: when bitbake is being a hog, switch to another
shell and run smem
(1:11:58 PM) Tartarus: k
(1:12:07 PM) RP__: clean build baseline would be useful and some details
about what layers are in there
(1:12:12 PM) Tartarus: With minutes I guess that's enough documentation of
what's expected
(1:12:17 PM) Tartarus: thanls
(1:12:19 PM) Tartarus: *thanks
(1:12:36 PM) RP__: I suspect specific questions would follow but its enough
to start a discussion
(1:12:59 PM) RP__: What it doesn't tell us is what is using the memory
within bitbake
(1:13:14 PM) RP__: but I'm looking into ways of finding that out
(1:13:26 PM) RP__: Also for reference I looked at our lockfile performance
(1:13:32 PM) koen: 80 megs/thread is >600MB for 8 threads
(1:13:34 PM) RP__: I wanted to check there wasn't something nasty going on
(1:13:54 PM) Tartarus: koen: Yeah, but for 8 threads what do you think
system memory is?
(1:14:02 PM) RP__: koen: but for an 8 thread system you probably have 6GB+
(1:14:08 PM) RP__: so only 10% memory
(1:14:18 PM) ***Tartarus would think 6 is kinda low
(1:14:25 PM) koen: Tartarus: 2GB over here
(1:14:31 PM) RP__: my system happens to have 6
(1:14:31 PM) Tartarus: koen: And 8 bb threads?
(1:14:36 PM) koen: yes
(1:14:41 PM) RP__: koen: 32 bit?
(1:14:45 PM) koen: 64
(1:14:51 PM) RP__: heh, ouch
(1:14:51 PM) Tartarus: how many cores?
(1:14:53 PM) koen: core2quad
(1:15:03 PM) Tartarus: heh
(1:15:08 PM) RP__: koen: you need more memory regardless of bitbake
(1:15:12 PM) ***Jefro has a system like koen's
(1:15:16 PM) Tartarus: Lets leave this for later, yeah
(1:15:18 PM) koen: some semiconductor vendor can't handles doubles sided
(1:15:23 PM) Tartarus: I would bet 8 threads isn't the optimal value
(1:15:56 PM) koen: Tartarus: with the ssd I can go over 8, unless it's asio,
qt or webkit
(1:16:12 PM) RP__: So for lockfiles, I noticed a total lock wait time of
about 80 seconds on a sato image build mostly on the do_package lock
(1:16:34 PM) RP__: max wait for anyone was 22 seconds, followed by 7
seconds, 3, 1, 1 etc
(1:16:52 PM) RP__: so in summary I think the lock contention is actually
pretty good
(1:17:43 PM) RP__: So anything else?
(1:17:49 PM) RP__: or onto action items
(1:17:57 PM) RP__: does anyone know if Khem sent email?
(1:19:04 PM) Tartarus: er
(1:19:05 PM) RP__: if someone does, let us know or we can ask khem next week
(1:19:06 PM) Tartarus: gah
(1:19:29 PM) Jefro: I'm looking, but nothing jumps out with a clearly
identifiable Subject line
(1:19:59 PM) Tartarus: I think he only said he wasn't going to be able to
make it
(1:20:02 PM) ***RP__ doesn't remember seeing anything but I only skim oe-dev
(1:20:07 PM) fray: I'm here.. sorry for being late
(1:20:20 PM) RP__: fray: hi, you have the backlog I guess
(1:20:35 PM) RP__: fray: if there is anything you want to add, please chime
(1:20:40 PM) RP__: fray: any topics to add?
(1:20:48 PM) RP__: Onto status updates
(1:20:50 PM) RP__: elections
(1:20:57 PM) fray: no topics..
(1:20:58 PM) RP__: I've been elected
(1:21:03 PM) fray: other then I'll be out again next Thursday
(1:21:16 PM) RP__: did we decide when the next election should be or are we
leaving this to the board?
(1:21:29 PM) RP__: fray: I'm sure Jefro will note that
(1:21:36 PM) Jefro: yup
(1:21:40 PM) koen: leave it to the board
(1:21:46 PM) koen: them seem to be awake nowadays
(1:21:51 PM) koen: they*
(1:21:54 PM) fray: it should be in 2 months (I thought).. but we may need to
remind them
(1:22:15 PM) RP__: ok, I think that is reasonable
(1:22:31 PM) fray: that is.. the call for candidates is 2 months after the
last call for candidates..
(1:22:35 PM) RP__: OE-Core status then
(1:22:54 PM) RP__: There as been quite a bit going on
(1:23:08 PM) RP__: Yocto is noticing some instability atm with all the
changes :/
(1:23:38 PM) Tartarus: Related, I'm noticing some problems running the test
classes w/ oe-core
(1:23:52 PM) Tartarus: Could just be more documentation needed
(1:23:54 PM) RP__: We're trying to fire fight the issues and we'll be
entering a period of more stabilisation soon
(1:24:10 PM) RP__: I do want to ask people about stabilisation
(1:24:25 PM) RP__: I think having a period of stabilsation for OE-Core would
be a good thing
(1:24:32 PM) fray: so far I'm seeing fewer QA and related messages then when
I went on vacation.. but there are still a few
(1:24:34 PM) Tartarus: I think it would be reasonable to ask people to say
what they tested
(1:24:38 PM) Tartarus: And ask more often, how was this tested
(1:24:43 PM) fray: Tartarus ya, I agree..
(1:24:58 PM) ***Tartarus is bad at this sometimes too, forgot to say how I
did test the siteinfo changes
(1:25:28 PM) koen: you bribed the intern?
(1:25:37 PM) fray: heh
(1:26:04 PM) fray: I think the siteinfo overhaul of oe-core will help reduce
some of the stability issues.. but itself might lead to a few short-term
(1:26:11 PM) RP__: One of the big changes which I've not seen much comment
on yet is the arch/tune file changes
(1:26:13 PM) ***Tartarus notes fray recalls what he did as an "intern" :)
(1:26:33 PM) fray: seems like it's one of those things we need to keep doing
for maintenance..
(1:26:39 PM) fray: Tartarus you were never a typical "intern"
(1:26:50 PM) Tartarus: RP__: I did read the thread, looks OK to me
(1:27:04 PM) RP__: Tartarus: Did you look at the patches?
(1:27:13 PM) Tartarus: RP__: arch/tune stuff? yes.
(1:27:15 PM) fray: The overall arch/tune cleanup I think is a really good
idea.. I've been working on refining what RP__ sent out.. and have made
(1:27:19 PM) RP__: Tartarus: ok, cool
(1:27:39 PM) RP__: Both fray and I are distilling this into something better
(1:27:49 PM) fray: the main difference is I've moved the core arch ABI stuff
to  the arch-<arch> files... and the tune-... files only contain specific
core tunings..
(1:27:52 PM) RP__: Many different use cases to consider etc
(1:28:02 PM) fray: (in reality that only affects the arm
(1:28:32 PM) RP__: Do we think the people who need to be aware of these
changes are aware of them?
(1:28:38 PM) Tartarus: Does anyone recall what Fedora's arm7vhl is?
(1:28:47 PM) Tartarus: Is that what debian/etc calls hf?
(1:28:57 PM) Tartarus: armv7hl that is
(1:29:03 PM) fray: I would say we need to keep posting discussions on the
mailing list.. so people continue to be reminded..
(1:29:17 PM) RP__: agreed, I'm just wondering if there is anything else we
can do
(1:29:28 PM) Tartarus: just keep talking in public
(1:29:31 PM) Tartarus: that's about all you can do
(1:29:32 PM) RP__: and are we confortable as the TSC with changing the way
these files work like this
(1:29:38 PM) Tartarus: folks join in and either agree in silence or speak up
(1:29:51 PM) koen: make a patch against oe-core instead of poky would be a
start :p
(1:29:52 PM) RP__: I think its necessary and overdue but I just want to
check we are all in sync
(1:29:57 PM) Tartarus: RP__: I think the overall approach looks like it'll
help, so yes
(1:30:12 PM) RP__: koen: I explained why I did that
(1:30:20 PM) RP__: koen: If I merge the bitbake change it'll be easier
(1:30:26 PM) fray: koen, I'm working on poky due to the multilib stuff right
now.. but I intend to rebase on oe-core when I get it working.. (I'm about
50% of the way there)
(1:30:29 PM) Tartarus: koen: I'd like to put in another beg for all the TSC
folks to give oe-core, sans meta-oe/etc a little love at times, and yes that
includes me doing more :)
(1:30:48 PM) ***fray notes he usually operates in oe-core exclusively
(1:30:55 PM) Tartarus: Maybe as a future topic we can talk about yocto post
1.1 and oe-core and where we'd like to see folks work "first"
(1:31:02 PM) Tartarus: But, new big topic, so lets put that off for a week
(1:31:05 PM) Tartarus: or ML it
(1:31:15 PM) Tartarus: I could even try and start ML'ing it now
(1:31:16 PM) RP__: Tartarus: well, I would like to point out that meta-yocto
is *tiny*
(1:31:18 PM) koen: Tartarus: bare oe-core doesn't have the bits I need
(1:31:33 PM) RP__: deliberately to head off these kind of problems
(1:31:43 PM) koen: RP__: you can make it even tinier if you put atom-pc in
(1:31:45 PM) Tartarus: Like I said, lets start on the ML
(1:32:09 PM) Tartarus: and I'll kick it off with what I mean and what I see
as being the first answer to what I imagine both RP and koen have as
(1:32:14 PM) RP__: koen: yes, I know
(1:32:26 PM) Tartarus: So, where were we?
(1:32:32 PM) RP__: OE Core status
(1:32:41 PM) Tartarus: and tune stuff, covered
(1:32:44 PM) fray: BTW for the tunings, I think the biggest thing we need to
try to get write are the tune file names and architecture settings.. (sounds
simple.. but it gets confusing quikcly)
(1:32:48 PM) Tartarus: siteinfo I guess covered well enough, i'd just add
one thing
(1:32:51 PM) fray: (ok I'm done w/ the tuning)  :)
(1:33:03 PM) Tartarus: I'm probably really going to try the "nuke the
current ones, do world again" approach
(1:33:10 PM) RP__: So multilib is being worked upon and I'll likely start
merging more pieces of it soon
(1:33:13 PM) Tartarus: There's a lot of cruft in what we do have wrt unused
(1:33:19 PM) Tartarus: and wrt not meaingful now stuff
(1:33:36 PM) RP__: Tartarus: There is certainly some junk in them
(1:33:54 PM) koen: the current arm site files only work for eabi
(1:33:59 PM) RP__: I do want to highlight this stabilisation thing a little
more clearly though
(1:34:32 PM) RP__: I'd imagine starting in mid August, we'll start to look
for patches with a more stabilising viewpoint than features
(1:34:53 PM) RP__: Effectively like the kernel does
(1:35:00 PM) RP__: It'll be the first time we've done this, obviously
(1:35:22 PM) RP__: but it does mean if you're doing feature work, it needs
to get done sooner than later or it could be a short while before it merges
(1:35:37 PM) RP__: At some point we will branch the release branch and then
master can open for features again
(1:35:45 PM) fray: koen, we only support eabi in oe-core right?
(1:35:47 PM) ***koen is still trying to figure out which things are bugs and
which are design decisions in oe-core
(1:35:51 PM) fray: (both hard and softfp calling conventions)
(1:35:56 PM) koen: fray: you can build oabi if you wish
(1:36:11 PM) fray: "How"?
(1:36:16 PM) RP__: koen: do you have some examples?
(1:36:40 PM) koen: RP__: patching out polkit in consolekit was one
(1:36:49 PM) koen: gstreamer packaging the other
(1:36:59 PM) RP__: koen: I think that was a badly through out hack
(1:37:11 PM) RP__: koen: gstreamer packaging was more of a design decision
(1:38:00 PM) RP__: koen: splitting it into a separate .inc file is straight
forward to merge
(1:38:06 PM) RP__: the naming is a tricker issue
(1:38:29 PM) koen: I'm just naming examples, not passing judgement :)
(1:38:43 PM) RP__: koen: I'm just putting them into the categories :)
(1:38:57 PM) RP__: ok - anything else on the core?
(1:39:01 PM) fray: collecting these into some kind of a "changes" document
for oe -> oe-core transition would be good
(1:39:20 PM) RP__: any issues with the above stabilisation approach?
(1:39:43 PM) RP__: fray: I'm conscious we need to do that for yocto for
transition between versions
(1:39:52 PM) koen: I'd make a generic remark about doing *libc changes a bit
(1:40:01 PM) koen: but we covered that in earlier meetings already
(1:40:10 PM) fray: no issues, just a comment that we need a way to work with
people who are developing and not stabilizing..
(1:40:25 PM) fray: (I doubt that will be a huge problem though -- for
(1:40:36 PM) RP__: fray: people can work in branches for a bit
(1:40:46 PM) fray: thats fine with me
(1:40:57 PM) koen: preferably oe-core branches
(1:41:02 PM) RP__: if it becomes an issue there are things we can do, I'd
rather solve it if its a problem though
(1:41:39 PM) RP__: some natural pressure for people to thing about
stabilisation is probably a good thing IMO
(1:41:41 PM) koen: a few weeks ago there was talk about automated testing of
(1:41:44 PM) RP__: worked well for the kernel for example
(1:41:48 PM) koen: did beth get her hardware to do that?
(1:42:01 PM) RP__: hardware wise there has been a screwup :(
(1:42:25 PM) koen: RP__: working for a hw vendor myself, I'm not suprised
(1:42:27 PM) RP__: I've been assuming we'd get some and for various reasons
the hardware donation ended up being inappropriate :(
(1:42:54 PM) RP__: The LF is going to buy OE some hardware out of its own
pocket since it made promises
(1:43:02 PM) RP__: but Yocto and Beth don't get anything
(1:43:14 PM) RP__: so we're looking at alternatives
(1:43:21 PM) koen: the cloud!
(1:43:28 PM) Tartarus: Can we ask how inappropriate?
(1:43:42 PM) RP__: Tartarus: not suitable for a datacentre
(1:44:25 PM) koen: anyway, back to stabilizing
(1:44:40 PM) koen: does oe-core have some features/guidelines?
(1:44:45 PM) koen: I know yocto has
(1:44:59 PM) koen: but does oe-core have any?
(1:45:02 PM) Tartarus: Maybe it's time for for testing-next weekly branches
(1:45:06 PM) RP__: koen: guidelines for what?
(1:45:13 PM) koen: stabilizing, etc
(1:45:33 PM) koen: we're conflating yocto milestones with oe-core, which
isn't strictly true
(1:45:54 PM) RP__: koen: well, I'm assuming OE-Core does want to release
alongside Yocto
(1:46:09 PM) fray: ya.. timeline wise things seemed to line up as such
(1:46:25 PM) RP__: koen: if OE-Core wants to do something different, we as a
TSC can recommend that but I'm not sure what advantage that would have?
(1:46:32 PM) koen: I'm assuming that as well, but I don't think I've seen
any traffic about that on the oe-core list
(1:46:47 PM) RP__: koen: well, what I'm leading too is a discussion of this
on the list
(1:46:54 PM) fray: last traffic I remember was discussion of a September
release of "oe" based on oe-core
(1:46:57 PM) RP__: but I wanted to talk about it here first
(1:48:07 PM) RP__: So I think the AR is for me to take this onto the mailing
(1:48:21 PM) RP__: assuming the TSC is ok with the broad plan
(1:49:04 PM) RP__: I'll take silence as approval
(1:49:05 PM) fray: I am
(1:49:06 PM) RP__: Anything we want to discuss on BSP/Layers?
(1:49:36 PM) RP__: and I think we already covered infrastructure above
unless there is anything else we need to talk about?
(1:49:36 PM) Jefro: fray: can bsp guidelines be removed from this list, now
that it is published
(1:50:05 PM) RP__: Jefro: perhaps layer splitting could be replaced with
meta-oe ?
(1:50:14 PM) Jefro: RP__ ok
(1:50:21 PM) RP__: and an "other layers" topic
(1:50:26 PM) fray: Jefro, not sure.. I havn't looked at any BSP stuff.. has
anyone else?
(1:50:39 PM) RP__: since I think we should have a little focus on those
specific areas
(1:50:54 PM) fray: ya.. meta-oe and "other layers" would be best
(1:50:58 PM) Jefro: I think it is possible that "bsp guidelines" was
actually "patch guidelines", which you published (and which i am adapting
for yocto)
(1:51:08 PM) RP__: The question is do we have a relatively clear idea on how
to do a BSP layer
(1:51:09 PM) Jefro: fray: will do re meta-oe and other layers
(1:51:13 PM) fray: I thought there were a seperate guide we wanted on how to
generate a BSP in a layer
(1:51:16 PM) RP__: I think at this point we do
(1:51:27 PM) Tartarus: Well, we need some sort of "start a BSP layer" type
(1:51:34 PM) Jefro: I can just add that as a separate status topic
(1:51:43 PM) RP__: Tartarus: did the yocto stuff cover that or not?
(1:52:09 PM) Tartarus: I don't know for sure atm, but let me pose a
(1:52:25 PM) Tartarus: Freescale wants to put up support for say P2020DS
(1:52:31 PM) Tartarus: normal 32bit platform
(1:52:36 PM) Tartarus: Where's their layer go?
(1:52:45 PM) RP__: Tartarus: depends who is maintaining it really
(1:52:56 PM) RP__: Tartarus: and where they want it...
(1:52:58 PM) Tartarus: Freescale is author
(1:53:02 PM) Tartarus: What are the choices?
(1:53:15 PM) koen: github, freescale.com
(1:53:35 PM) RP__: Tartarus: They put it up somewhere at freescale, it goes
somewhere at Mentor, github, git.oe.org or git.yp.org
(1:53:39 PM) Tartarus: Is there a openembedded.org or yoctoproject.orgoption?
(1:53:57 PM) RP__: Tartarus: yp would happily take it, I can say that for
(1:53:59 PM) koen: aiui the board is still against hosting layers on oe.org
(1:54:14 PM) fray: Tartarus the yp.org is expected..  oe.org is no because
of resources.. right?
(1:54:16 PM) koen: not sure how that micro layer weaseled itself onto oe.org,
but it's there
(1:54:18 PM) Tartarus: OK, and are these choices posted?
(1:54:28 PM) RP__: koen: I can understand the concern there wrt cost of
bandwidth etc
(1:54:44 PM) RP__: and server admin
(1:55:04 PM) RP__: Tartarus: I guess not clearly and we should do that.
Where is the correct place to "post" them?
(1:55:08 PM) koen: I understand their concern
(1:55:19 PM) Tartarus: RP__: wiki?
(1:55:27 PM) RP__: Tartarus: Yocto? OE?
(1:55:28 PM) koen: I'm just saying that if bw and admin is an issue, how did
that micro layer get there?
(1:55:39 PM) RP__: koen: micro layer?
(1:55:40 PM) Tartarus: Both?
(1:55:49 PM) Tartarus: Or at least a basics on OE
(1:56:01 PM) RP__: Jefro: Fancy adding something to the wikis about this?
(1:56:01 PM) Tartarus: and a "or send XXX at LF.org your info" for yocto wiki
(1:56:10 PM) Jefro: I can take action item to work this out with RP and add
to the appropriate wiki
(1:56:10 PM) Tartarus: since it's clear how to self host or use github
(1:56:19 PM) Tartarus: But if someone wants a yocto hosting, that's a yocto
wiki topic
(1:56:24 PM) RP__: Jefro: sounds like a plan
(1:56:25 PM) Jefro: there may be minor differences between the yocto version
and the oe version
(1:56:59 PM) RP__: Tartarus: I'm very open to people having layers on
(1:57:05 PM) Tartarus: RP__: k
(1:57:15 PM) Tartarus: But my only point is who needs to be asked to set
things up
(1:57:20 PM) Tartarus: Presumably you have a full inbox already :)
(1:57:29 PM) Tartarus: And would be asking someone else to do the details
(1:57:30 PM) RP__: Tartarus: keeper of repos is Beth
(1:57:34 PM) Tartarus: Bingo
(1:57:53 PM) RP__: so its me+Beth, I ack, she sets it up
(1:58:05 PM) Tartarus: Info for the yocto wiki page on this topic :)
(1:58:25 PM) ***RP__ is hoping Jefro is taking notes :)
(1:58:29 PM) Jefro: :) yes
(1:58:32 PM) Jefro: *** 2 minute warning ***
(1:58:41 PM) RP__: Yes, nearly time
(1:58:43 PM) koen: RP__: http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/meta-micro/
(1:58:45 PM) RP__: Any other business?
(1:59:10 PM) RP__: koen: I don't think the board said no layers
(1:59:17 PM) Tartarus: As a small note, I hope to throw a matrix of world
builds of oe-core at machines over the weekend
(1:59:24 PM) Tartarus: We'll see how much git submodule hates me of course
(1:59:32 PM) RP__: koen: I think the idea was big commercial interests would
just have better ways to do it like their own websites or YP
(1:59:32 PM) Tartarus: and if 100GB will be enough space, I hope so tho
(1:59:56 PM) RP__: Tartarus: I have noticed OE-Core seems very space hungry
(2:00:06 PM) RP__: Tartarus: with or without rm_work?
(2:00:18 PM) Tartarus: RP__: Depends on what I remember in time before
pushing the button
(2:00:34 PM) RP__: Tartarus: ok, just curious who uses it really
(2:00:36 PM) Tartarus: I'd probably throw in rm_work in hopes it works,
since, bah, crap, some boxes are on 50GB still
(2:01:10 PM) RP__: Tartarus: 25GB per machine for world I think
(2:01:15 PM) RP__: without rm_work
(2:01:30 PM) Tartarus: k
(2:01:51 PM) ***koen is on a ~50gb ssd partition
(2:02:17 PM) koen: if you use that for tmp/ you can barely build one
machines at peak useage
(2:02:25 PM) RP__: and on that note I think we're done roughly on time :)

Jeff Osier-Mixon http://jefro.net/blog
Yocto Project Community Manager @Intel http://yoctoproject.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/tsc/attachments/20110715/727f1c9f/attachment.html>

More information about the tsc mailing list