interest in a minimal image recipe

[Brad Bishop]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 08:53:26AM -0700, Ed Tanous wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 5:55 AM Brad Bishop <bradleyb at fuzziesquirrel.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ok but those are autotools/cmake/meson options which correlate to a
>> distro feature or maybe a packageconfig.  Those are orthogonal to image
>> features and image recipes, which is what I've proposed.  I've not
>> proposed a minimal distro policy.
>
>Maybe this has all been a wash then.  I had thought you were proposing
>a minimal distro, and didn't realize you were building a minimal image
>with the existing distro.  My bad.

No worries.  To have a minimal distro, we first need a set of default 
distro features from which to subtract some to have a minimal set.  We 
don't really have any real distro features defined yet - the ones we do 
are non-sensical IMO - they are artifacts of my lack of bitbake-fu from 
5 years ago.  I would like to hear about areas where you think it might 
make sense to define distro features.

>With that said, the images description is "Basic OpenBMC image with
>full support for the hardware supported by the system".  Was it
>intentional to call out "full support"?  Maybe I've misinterpreted the
>long term intent of this patch?

I can see how my summary would cause confusion.  FWIW I used the summary 
in core-image-base as a template.  Is there a better summary?

Maybe this helps - I was trying to replicate oe-core:

  core-image-sato -> obmc-phosphor-image (all/most of the image features 
                                          are enabled by default)
  core-image-base -> obmc-phosphor-image-base (a minimal set of packages)

What is the minimal set of packages?  I don't think we know yet.  I 
expect many to bbappend obmc-phosphor-image-base, and select specific 
image features (IMAGE_FEATURES) or directly install packages 
(IMAGE_INSTALL).  After enough time has passed, we can use those as an 
input for identifying what makes sense to use in the base image recipe 
as the default.