Date   

Re: promoting Rust to first class citizen in oe-core

Randy MacLeod
 

My filters hide this email in a folder even though I was CCed. Updated now.

On 2020-09-12 10:19 p.m., Khem Raj wrote:
On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 12:07 PM Alexander Kanavin
<alex.kanavin@...> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 22:24, Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@...> wrote:
This has been talked about a lot but there is work to be done to get
this into core. Not many people seem willing to step up and do that
work so progress has been slow.

The hardest part may be getting the crate fetcher into bitbake in an
acceptable form.
I was stuck on the librsvg build error for a while so
I haven't yet looked into how the cargo fetcher works.

The cargo bitbake tool can generate bitbake recipes from a toml file:

   https://github.com/meta-rust/cargo-bitbake

It certainly lists all the crates in the generated recipe's SRC_URI
and it looks like they are fetched during do_fetch but I haven't
done the fetch and then disabled the network to be sure yet.


I'm all in favour too, as long as it really is sorted to be a first
class citizen.

That's why I specifically CCd Randy: he's done some work towards this, so I was hoping for some kind of current update or maybe remaining items where help is needed.

Rust and to a certain extent go has a bit different dynamics, where
the language tools are pretty much inherently cross compilers. they
provide easy installers and updaters for tools
and they release very often, they also have their own package
management systems, the programs are quite standalone in the ( like
static programs) so there is not much need for them
from system.  end-users update compilers very often than not they are
using the latest compilers due to the above reasons.
these are real concerns when you consider timed releases schedules
like yocto and now we have LTS too.
Yes, I've been mulling that over as well.
Please could do app development using their
distro's rust or the 'rustup' toolchain by specifying

the target:

$ cargo build --target TRIPLE

and then for production releases, use bitbake.

I agree with Richard's sentiment that we need robust fetcher
integration as a starting point and perhaps full knowledge of
dependency management to offer a compelling solution. I would like to
see it used when in core and we need answers for the above topics,
currently, meta-rust e.g. follows a release cadence of its own which
is good fit for developers, maybe not as much for release
engineering.


After months of neglect, I did update the merge of
meta-rust to oe-core over the long weekend. Of course now
different things are broken than before!

Here's the oneline summary:

d3d419e11b (HEAD -> rust-wip-sept-5) librsvg: update to 2.49.5
dd921fee61 librsvg: Update from 2.40.20 to 2.46.4
ea484c5069 ripgrep: add temporarily
6a00ee0909 Add rust 1.46.0
7332db1316 rust: use PARALLEL_MAKE instead of BB_NUMBER_THREADS
8fab4132ee rust.inc: whitelist BB_NUMBER_THREADS in do_compile
dbf873714f Bump to Rust version 1.43
b40c54e810 Revert "cargo: fix progress output"
d223ab9b58 cargo: fix progress output
06e16e3475 rust.inc: cut build time in half
71dd219d97 rust.inc: run bootstrap.py in parallel
9e92ceda37 rust.inc: make max-atomic-width an integer
60ab501447 rust-native shouldn't depend on TARGET variables
afed138555 rustfmt: Upgrade to 1.4.2
50cde902c9 Avoid extra sh process from shell wrapper
0851bb0f1d Update 0001-Disable-http2.patch for cargo 1.41.0
787d064ca1 Update to Rust 1.41.0
756b950b5e rust: add a language demo image to test reproducibility
f543ee0909 cargo: Refresh http2 disable patch
e6ea4ca57c Update 0001-Disable-http2.patch for Cargo shipped with Rust 1.40.0
4189c968df Update to Rust and Cargo 1.40.0.
18af1ae487 rust: Use Python3 native for build
76de2d7175 rust: Improve TUNE_FEATURE parsing
043446750a Update to Rust and Cargo 1.39.0
5a962934f4 rust: mv README.md to recipes-devtools/rust/README-rust.md
b7f42be3f3 meta-rust: move code to oe-core from meta-rust layer
6d4d6b888f Add libgit2, libssh2 from meta-oe for rust
bdca4796ff (origin/master, origin/HEAD, master) weston-init: Enable RDP screen share


I'll get things in somewhat better order and push what I have to poky-contrib
or wherever so that other people can join in the fun or see what's going on.

The latest error when doing 'bitbake librsvg' on the newer librsvg is:

ERROR: librsvg-2.49.5-r0 do_compile: Execution of '/ala-lpggp31/rmacleod/src/distro/yocto/b/rust-sep-5/tmp-glibc/work/core2-64-oe-linux/librsvg/2.49.5-r0/temp/run.do_co:
error: more than one source location specified for `source.crates-io`
WARNING: exit code 101 from a shell command.

but bitbake rust-hello-world  or bitbake ripgrep works fine.


After I (we?) get librsvg to build again, I believe there were
problems with gstreamer as well.

../Randy


Alex


-- 
# Randy MacLeod
# Wind River Linux


Re: promoting Rust to first class citizen in oe-core

Khem Raj
 

On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 12:07 PM Alexander Kanavin
<alex.kanavin@...> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 22:24, Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@...> wrote:

This has been talked about a lot but there is work to be done to get
this into core. Not many people seem willing to step up and do that
work so progress has been slow.

The hardest part may be getting the crate fetcher into bitbake in an
acceptable form.

I'm all in favour too, as long as it really is sorted to be a first
class citizen.

That's why I specifically CCd Randy: he's done some work towards this, so I was hoping for some kind of current update or maybe remaining items where help is needed.
Rust and to a certain extent go has a bit different dynamics, where
the language tools are pretty much inherently cross compilers. they
provide easy installers and updaters for tools
and they release very often, they also have their own package
management systems, the programs are quite standalone in the ( like
static programs) so there is not much need for them
from system. end-users update compilers very often than not they are
using the latest compilers due to the above reasons.
these are real concerns when you consider timed releases schedules
like yocto and now we have LTS too.

I agree with Richard's sentiment that we need robust fetcher
integration as a starting point and perhaps full knowledge of
dependency management to offer a compelling solution. I would like to
see it used when in core and we need answers for the above topics,
currently, meta-rust e.g. follows a release cadence of its own which
is good fit for developers, maybe not as much for release
engineering.

Alex


Re: promoting Rust to first class citizen in oe-core

Alexander Kanavin
 

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 22:24, Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@...> wrote:
This has been talked about a lot but there is work to be done to get
this into core. Not many people seem willing to step up and do that
work so progress has been slow.

The hardest part may be getting the crate fetcher into bitbake in an
acceptable form.

I'm all in favour too, as long as it really is sorted to be a first
class citizen.

That's why I specifically CCd Randy: he's done some work towards this, so I was hoping for some kind of current update or maybe remaining items where help is needed.

Alex


Re: promoting Rust to first class citizen in oe-core

Richard Purdie
 

On Thu, 2020-09-10 at 22:03 +0200, Andreas Müller wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 9:52 PM Alexander Kanavin
<alex.kanavin@...> wrote:
Hello all,

I just read this article, called "Supporting Linux kernel
development in Rust"
https://lwn.net/Articles/829858/
and it looks like the future is set, and particularly the Yocto
project should prepare for it.

Thoughts?
As a gnome in Yocto 'enthusiast' there is not much to say but: yes
yes
yes. We have all these rust blockers as librsvg, mozjs. ->
gnome-shell/mutter
This has been talked about a lot but there is work to be done to get
this into core. Not many people seem willing to step up and do that
work so progress has been slow.

The hardest part may be getting the crate fetcher into bitbake in an
acceptable form.

I'm all in favour too, as long as it really is sorted to be a first
class citizen.

Cheers,

Richard


Re: promoting Rust to first class citizen in oe-core

Andreas Müller
 

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 9:52 PM Alexander Kanavin
<alex.kanavin@...> wrote:

Hello all,

I just read this article, called "Supporting Linux kernel development in Rust"
https://lwn.net/Articles/829858/
and it looks like the future is set, and particularly the Yocto project should prepare for it.

Thoughts?
As a gnome in Yocto 'enthusiast' there is not much to say but: yes yes
yes. We have all these rust blockers as librsvg, mozjs. ->
gnome-shell/mutter

Andreas


Re: promoting Rust to first class citizen in oe-core

Otavio Salvador
 

Em qui., 10 de set. de 2020 às 16:51, Alexander Kanavin
<alex.kanavin@...> escreveu:
I just read this article, called "Supporting Linux kernel development in Rust"
https://lwn.net/Articles/829858/
and it looks like the future is set, and particularly the Yocto project should prepare for it.

Thoughts?
I support this for sure. I've been using Rust with Yocto Project for a
while now and it does fit well to be in OE-Core.


--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750


promoting Rust to first class citizen in oe-core

Alexander Kanavin
 

Hello all,

I just read this article, called "Supporting Linux kernel development in Rust"
and it looks like the future is set, and particularly the Yocto project should prepare for it.

Thoughts?

Alex


Re: Stable release testing - notes from the autobuilder perspective

Tom Rini
 

On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 10:30:20PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Mon, 2020-09-07 at 17:19 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 10:03:36PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Mon, 2020-09-07 at 16:55 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
The autobuilder is setup for speed so there aren't VMs involved, its
'baremetal'. Containers would be possible but at that point the kernel
isn't the distro kernel and you have permission issues with the qemu
networking for example.
Which issues do you run in to with qemu networking? I honestly don't
know if the U-Boot networking tests we run via qemu under Docker are
more or less complex than what you're running in to.
Its the tun/tap device requirement that tends to be the pain point.
Being able to ssh from the host OS into the qemu target image is a
central requirement of oeqa. Everyone tells me it should use
portmapping and slirp instead to avoid the privs problems and the
container issues which is great but not implemented.
Ah, OK. Yes, we're using "user" networking not tap.

Speed is extremely important as we have about a 6 hour build test time
but a *massive* test range (e.g. all the gcc/glibc test suites on each
arch, build+boot test all the arches under qemu for sysvinit+systemd,
oe-selftest on each distro). I am already tearing my hair out trying to
maintain what we have and deal with the races, adding in containers
into the mix simply isn't something I can face.

We do have older distros in the cluster for a time, e.g. centos7 is
still there although we've replaced the OS on some of the original
centos7 workers as the hardware had disk failures so there aren't as
many of them as there were. Centos7 gives us problems trying to build
master.
The reason I was thinking about containers is that it should remove some
of what you have to face.
Removes some, yes, but creates a whole set of other issues.

Paul may or may not want to chime in on how
workable it ended up being for a particular customer, but leveraging
CROPS to setup build environment of a supported host and then running it
on whatever the available build hardware is, was good. It sounds like
part of the autobuilder problem is that it has to be a specific set of
hand-crafted machines and that in turn feels like we've lost the
thread, so to speak,
The machines are in fact pretty much off the shelf distro installs so
not hand crafted.
Sorry, what I meant by hand-crafted is that for it to work for older
installs, you have to have this particular dance to provide various host
tools, that weren't required at the time.

about having a reproducible build system. 6 hours
even beats my U-Boot world before/after times, so I do get the dread of
"now it might take 5% longer, which is a very real more wallclock time.
But if it means more builders could be available as they're easy to spin
up, that could bring the overall time down.
Here we get onto infrastructure as we're not talking containers on our
workers but on general cloud systems which is a different proposition.

We *heavily* rely on the fast network fabric between the workers and
our nas for sstate (NFS mounted). This is where we get a big chunk of
speed. So "easy to spin up" isn't actually the case for different
reasons.

So this plan is the best practical approach we can come up with to
allow us to be able to build older releases yet not change the
autobuilders too much and cause new sets of problems. I should have
mentioned this, I just assume people kind of know this, sorry.
Since I don't want to put even more on your plate, what kind of is the
reasonable test to try here? Or is it hard to say since it's not just
"MACHINE=qemux86-64 bitbake world" but also "run this and that and
something else" ?
Its quite simple:

MACHINE=qemux86-64 bitbake core-image-sato-sdk -c testimage

and

MACHINE=qemux86-64 bitbake core-image-sato-sdk -c testsdkext

are the two to start with. If those work, the other "nasty" ones are
oe-selftest and the toolchain test suites. Also need to check kvm is
working.

We have gone around in circles on this several times as you're not the
first to suggest it :/.
Thanks for explaining it again. I'll go off and do some tests.

--
Tom


Re: Stable release testing - notes from the autobuilder perspective

Richard Purdie
 

On Mon, 2020-09-07 at 17:19 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 10:03:36PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Mon, 2020-09-07 at 16:55 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
The autobuilder is setup for speed so there aren't VMs involved, its
'baremetal'. Containers would be possible but at that point the kernel
isn't the distro kernel and you have permission issues with the qemu
networking for example.
Which issues do you run in to with qemu networking? I honestly don't
know if the U-Boot networking tests we run via qemu under Docker are
more or less complex than what you're running in to.
Its the tun/tap device requirement that tends to be the pain point.
Being able to ssh from the host OS into the qemu target image is a
central requirement of oeqa. Everyone tells me it should use
portmapping and slirp instead to avoid the privs problems and the
container issues which is great but not implemented.

Speed is extremely important as we have about a 6 hour build test time
but a *massive* test range (e.g. all the gcc/glibc test suites on each
arch, build+boot test all the arches under qemu for sysvinit+systemd,
oe-selftest on each distro). I am already tearing my hair out trying to
maintain what we have and deal with the races, adding in containers
into the mix simply isn't something I can face.

We do have older distros in the cluster for a time, e.g. centos7 is
still there although we've replaced the OS on some of the original
centos7 workers as the hardware had disk failures so there aren't as
many of them as there were. Centos7 gives us problems trying to build
master.
The reason I was thinking about containers is that it should remove some
of what you have to face.
Removes some, yes, but creates a whole set of other issues.

Paul may or may not want to chime in on how
workable it ended up being for a particular customer, but leveraging
CROPS to setup build environment of a supported host and then running it
on whatever the available build hardware is, was good. It sounds like
part of the autobuilder problem is that it has to be a specific set of
hand-crafted machines and that in turn feels like we've lost the
thread, so to speak,
The machines are in fact pretty much off the shelf distro installs so
not hand crafted.

about having a reproducible build system. 6 hours
even beats my U-Boot world before/after times, so I do get the dread of
"now it might take 5% longer, which is a very real more wallclock time.
But if it means more builders could be available as they're easy to spin
up, that could bring the overall time down.
Here we get onto infrastructure as we're not talking containers on our
workers but on general cloud systems which is a different proposition.

We *heavily* rely on the fast network fabric between the workers and
our nas for sstate (NFS mounted). This is where we get a big chunk of
speed. So "easy to spin up" isn't actually the case for different
reasons.

So this plan is the best practical approach we can come up with to
allow us to be able to build older releases yet not change the
autobuilders too much and cause new sets of problems. I should have
mentioned this, I just assume people kind of know this, sorry.
Since I don't want to put even more on your plate, what kind of is the
reasonable test to try here? Or is it hard to say since it's not just
"MACHINE=qemux86-64 bitbake world" but also "run this and that and
something else" ?
Its quite simple:

MACHINE=qemux86-64 bitbake core-image-sato-sdk -c testimage

and

MACHINE=qemux86-64 bitbake core-image-sato-sdk -c testsdkext

are the two to start with. If those work, the other "nasty" ones are
oe-selftest and the toolchain test suites. Also need to check kvm is
working.

We have gone around in circles on this several times as you're not the
first to suggest it :/.

Cheers,

Richard


Re: Stable release testing - notes from the autobuilder perspective

Tom Rini
 

On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 10:03:36PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Mon, 2020-09-07 at 16:55 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 02:59:41PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Hello all,

Em seg., 7 de set. de 2020 às 13:14, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@...> escreveu:
...
Any thoughts from anyone on this?
I second this and at least at O.S. Systems we've been using Docker
containers to keep maintenance easier for old releases. I'd be
great
we could alleviate this and reduce its use as much as possible.

The CI builder maintenance is indeed a time-consuming task and as
easier it gets the easier is to convince people to set up them for
their uses and in the end, this helps to improve the quality of
submitted patches and reduces the maintenance effort as well.
Excuse what may be a dumb question, but why are we not just building
pyro for example in a Ubuntu 16.04 or centos7 (or anything else with
official containers available) ? Is the performance hit too much,
even with good volume management? And extend that for other branches
of course. But as we look at why people care about such old releases
(or, supporting a current release into the future) it seems like "our
build environment is a container / VM so we can support this on
modern HW" pops up.
The autobuilder is setup for speed so there aren't VMs involved, its
'baremetal'. Containers would be possible but at that point the kernel
isn't the distro kernel and you have permission issues with the qemu
networking for example.
Which issues do you run in to with qemu networking? I honestly don't
know if the U-Boot networking tests we run via qemu under Docker are
more or less complex than what you're running in to.

Speed is extremely important as we have about a 6 hour build test time
but a *massive* test range (e.g. all the gcc/glibc test suites on each
arch, build+boot test all the arches under qemu for sysvinit+systemd,
oe-selftest on each distro). I am already tearing my hair out trying to
maintain what we have and deal with the races, adding in containers
into the mix simply isn't something I can face.

We do have older distros in the cluster for a time, e.g. centos7 is
still there although we've replaced the OS on some of the original
centos7 workers as the hardware had disk failures so there aren't as
many of them as there were. Centos7 gives us problems trying to build
master.
The reason I was thinking about containers is that it should remove some
of what you have to face. Paul may or may not want to chime in on how
workable it ended up being for a particular customer, but leveraging
CROPS to setup build environment of a supported host and then running it
on whatever the available build hardware is, was good. It sounds like
part of the autobuilder problem is that it has to be a specific set of
hand-crafted machines and that in turn feels like we've lost the
thread, so to speak, about having a reproducible build system. 6 hours
even beats my U-Boot world before/after times, so I do get the dread of
"now it might take 5% longer, which is a very real more wallclock time.
But if it means more builders could be available as they're easy to spin
up, that could bring the overall time down.

So this plan is the best practical approach we can come up with to
allow us to be able to build older releases yet not change the
autobuilders too much and cause new sets of problems. I should have
mentioned this, I just assume people kind of know this, sorry.
Since I don't want to put even more on your plate, what kind of is the
reasonable test to try here? Or is it hard to say since it's not just
"MACHINE=qemux86-64 bitbake world" but also "run this and that and
something else" ?

--
Tom


Re: Stable release testing - notes from the autobuilder perspective

Richard Purdie
 

On Mon, 2020-09-07 at 16:55 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 02:59:41PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Hello all,

Em seg., 7 de set. de 2020 às 13:14, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@...> escreveu:
...
Any thoughts from anyone on this?
I second this and at least at O.S. Systems we've been using Docker
containers to keep maintenance easier for old releases. I'd be
great
we could alleviate this and reduce its use as much as possible.

The CI builder maintenance is indeed a time-consuming task and as
easier it gets the easier is to convince people to set up them for
their uses and in the end, this helps to improve the quality of
submitted patches and reduces the maintenance effort as well.
Excuse what may be a dumb question, but why are we not just building
pyro for example in a Ubuntu 16.04 or centos7 (or anything else with
official containers available) ? Is the performance hit too much,
even with good volume management? And extend that for other branches
of course. But as we look at why people care about such old releases
(or, supporting a current release into the future) it seems like "our
build environment is a container / VM so we can support this on
modern HW" pops up.
The autobuilder is setup for speed so there aren't VMs involved, its
'baremetal'. Containers would be possible but at that point the kernel
isn't the distro kernel and you have permission issues with the qemu
networking for example.

Speed is extremely important as we have about a 6 hour build test time
but a *massive* test range (e.g. all the gcc/glibc test suites on each
arch, build+boot test all the arches under qemu for sysvinit+systemd,
oe-selftest on each distro). I am already tearing my hair out trying to
maintain what we have and deal with the races, adding in containers
into the mix simply isn't something I can face.

We do have older distros in the cluster for a time, e.g. centos7 is
still there although we've replaced the OS on some of the original
centos7 workers as the hardware had disk failures so there aren't as
many of them as there were. Centos7 gives us problems trying to build
master.

So this plan is the best practical approach we can come up with to
allow us to be able to build older releases yet not change the
autobuilders too much and cause new sets of problems. I should have
mentioned this, I just assume people kind of know this, sorry.

Cheers,

Richard


Re: Stable release testing - notes from the autobuilder perspective

Tom Rini
 

On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 02:59:41PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Hello all,

Em seg., 7 de set. de 2020 às 13:14, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@...> escreveu:
...
Any thoughts from anyone on this?
I second this and at least at O.S. Systems we've been using Docker
containers to keep maintenance easier for old releases. I'd be great
we could alleviate this and reduce its use as much as possible.

The CI builder maintenance is indeed a time-consuming task and as
easier it gets the easier is to convince people to set up them for
their uses and in the end, this helps to improve the quality of
submitted patches and reduces the maintenance effort as well.
Excuse what may be a dumb question, but why are we not just building
pyro for example in a Ubuntu 16.04 or centos7 (or anything else with
official containers available) ? Is the performance hit too much, even
with good volume management? And extend that for other branches of
course. But as we look at why people care about such old releases (or,
supporting a current release into the future) it seems like "our build
environment is a container / VM so we can support this on modern HW"
pops up.

--
Tom


Re: Stable release testing - notes from the autobuilder perspective

Otavio Salvador
 

Hello all,

Em seg., 7 de set. de 2020 às 13:14, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@...> escreveu:
...
Any thoughts from anyone on this?
I second this and at least at O.S. Systems we've been using Docker
containers to keep maintenance easier for old releases. I'd be great
we could alleviate this and reduce its use as much as possible.

The CI builder maintenance is indeed a time-consuming task and as
easier it gets the easier is to convince people to set up them for
their uses and in the end, this helps to improve the quality of
submitted patches and reduces the maintenance effort as well.

--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750


Stable release testing - notes from the autobuilder perspective

Richard Purdie
 

I wanted to write down my findings on trying to getting and keeping
stable branch builds working on the autobuilder. I also have a proposal
in mind for moving this forward.

Jeremy did good work in getting thud nearly building, building upon
work I'd done in getting buildtools-extended-tarball working for older
releases. Its not as simpler a problem as it would first appear.

We have two versions of buildtools tarball. In simple terms, one has
the basic utils needed to run builds without gcc and the other includes
gcc.

Our current policy was to install a buildtools tarball on certain
problematic autobuilders but this doesn't work since a given release
usually has a set of tools its known to work with and it won't work
without tools outside that. We therefore suffer "bitrot" as new workers
are added and older ones replaced with new distro installs.

In particular:
* gcc 10 doesn't work with older releases
* gcc 4.8 and 4.9 don't work with newer releases
* we no longer install makeinfo onto new autobuilder workers
* we no longer install python2 onto new autobuilder workers
* some older autobuilder workers have old versions of python3
* newer autobuilder workers need newer uninative versions
* some things changed like crypt() being moved out of glibc

This means that for a given release we want to use the standard
buildtools tarball on "old" systems and the extended buildtools tarball
on "new" systems that didn't exist at the time the release was made.

My thoughts are that we should:

a) Remove all the current buildtools installs from the autobuilder

b) teach autobuilder-helper to install buildtools tarballs in all the
older release branches

c) backport most of the autobuilder-helper changes to older releases so
its easier to maintain things

d) backport buildtools-extended-tarball to older releases

e) backport the necessary fixes to older releases to allow them to
build on the current infrastructure with buildtools.

Dunfell is in a good state and ok.

Zeus needs poky:zeus-next yocto-autobuilder-helper:contrib/rpurdie/zeus

Thud has branches available that need to update against the zeus
changes I've figured out which should get that working too.

Pyro has example code at poky-contrib:rpurdie/pyro to allow a
buildtools tarball that old to be built.

As things stand the branches are all just going to bitrot so if we can
get these branches to build cleanly, it would seem to make sense to me
to merge this approximate set of changes in the hope that stable
maintenance in case of any major security fix (for example) becomes
much more possible.

Any thoughts from anyone on this?

Cheers,

Richard


Re: Support for OpenRC

Rich Persaud
 

On Sep 5, 2020, at 13:55, Khem Raj <raj.khem@...> wrote:

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 8:28 AM Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@...> wrote:

On Sat, 2020-09-05 at 08:15 -0700, Achara, Jagdish P wrote:
Hi,

Currently we have the option to choose either sysvinit or systemd .
Would, at some point, openrc be included in this list of options to
choose from?

It comes down to the demand for it, whether there are people willing
the maintain it, how much of the system its planned to support and so
on. It has implications for the testing matrix for example.

The hope is individual layers could add support for things like this
and that would let people use it and let us gauge demand too.

init systems are quite taxing and intrusive to implement and hence I
agree with testing complexity
increase and in general higher maintenance work. meta-openrc seems a
good solution for now,
ideally, recipes should provide openRC scripts via bbappends and
perhaps create it as a DISTRO_FEATURE
but I think that's a good starting point to start with openrc and if
there are many users showing interest in
future we should definitely review it.

Devuan has also been testing in support of multiple init systems, which should improve upstream package readiness.  So far they have:

  - sysvinit
  - openrc
  - runit


Rich


Re: Support for OpenRC

Khem Raj
 

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 8:28 AM Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@...> wrote:

On Sat, 2020-09-05 at 08:15 -0700, Achara, Jagdish P wrote:
Hi,

Currently we have the option to choose either sysvinit or systemd .
Would, at some point, openrc be included in this list of options to
choose from?
It comes down to the demand for it, whether there are people willing
the maintain it, how much of the system its planned to support and so
on. It has implications for the testing matrix for example.

The hope is individual layers could add support for things like this
and that would let people use it and let us gauge demand too.
init systems are quite taxing and intrusive to implement and hence I
agree with testing complexity
increase and in general higher maintenance work. meta-openrc seems a
good solution for now,
ideally, recipes should provide openRC scripts via bbappends and
perhaps create it as a DISTRO_FEATURE
but I think that's a good starting point to start with openrc and if
there are many users showing interest in
future we should definitely review it.


Cheers,

Richard


Re: Support for OpenRC

 

On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 at 16:28, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@...> wrote:

On Sat, 2020-09-05 at 08:15 -0700, Achara, Jagdish P wrote:
Hi,

Currently we have the option to choose either sysvinit or systemd .
Would, at some point, openrc be included in this list of options to
choose from?
It comes down to the demand for it, whether there are people willing
the maintain it, how much of the system its planned to support and so
on. It has implications for the testing matrix for example.

The hope is individual layers could add support for things like this
and that would let people use it and let us gauge demand too.
This does exist in https://github.com/jsbronder/meta-openrc, I haven't
tested it myself though.

--
Paul Barker
Konsulko Group


Re: Support for OpenRC

Richard Purdie
 

On Sat, 2020-09-05 at 08:15 -0700, Achara, Jagdish P wrote:
Hi,

Currently we have the option to choose either sysvinit or systemd .
Would, at some point, openrc be included in this list of options to
choose from?
It comes down to the demand for it, whether there are people willing
the maintain it, how much of the system its planned to support and so
on. It has implications for the testing matrix for example.

The hope is individual layers could add support for things like this
and that would let people use it and let us gauge demand too.

Cheers,

Richard


Support for OpenRC

Achara, Jagdish P <jagdishpachara@...>
 

Hi,

Currently we have the option to choose either sysvinit or systemd . Would, at some point, openrc be included in this list of options to choose from?

Jagdish


OpenEmbedded Happy Hour July 29 9pm/2100 UTC

Denys Dmytriyenko
 

Just a reminder about our upcoming OpenEmbedded Happy Hour on July 29 for
Oceania/Asia timezones @ 2100/9pm UTC (5pm EDT):

https://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Calendar
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=OpenEmbedded+Happy+Hour+July+29&iso=20200729T21

--
Denys

481 - 500 of 1655