[oe] [RFC] get rid of legacy staging
martyn at welchs.me.uk
Sat Jul 24 15:01:32 CEST 2010
Can anyone point me to any documentation that describes what legacy
staging is and roughly what needs to be done to remove it?
I've looked on the wiki and find nothing, at the moment "legacy staging"
might as well be a marketing buzz word. I'm sure I'm not alone. I'm sure
there are loads of recipes that have been converted and I'm sure I
*could* spend a few hours trying to work out which changes modified them
to remove "legacy staging", however I wouldn't have any free time to
convert any of the un-touched recipes...
Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> Dear all,
> The topic of legacy staging has been on the table for probably 8 months or
> Still we have a lot of recipes that use legacy staging.
> This email tries to stir up the discussion on how to get rid of these.
> Most of the major recipes seem to be converted.
> Koen reported 53 recipes with legacy staging after building
> angstrom-gnome-image and openjdk. 
> This seems an indication that lots of common and actively used recipes are
> However there are still 1100+ recipes and about 150 .inc files that have a
> do_stage rule 
> This indicates that quite some work is still needed.
> Let's have a look at the options. What I see as possibilities are:
> A: accept that we will have lots of recipes around that use legacy staging
> B: update and test all recipes (at least up to the level that it is verified
> that the files stage properly after removing the legacy staging
> C: with a sed script or so remove all do_stage functions and hope the best
> for it.
> D: remove the recipes that still use legacy staging as apparently no-one is
> enough interested in them to update them.
> Let us now look at the pro's and con's of these possiblities:
> From the various calls to fix this that I have seen on the mailing list A is
> not really too desired.
> B would be nice, but is a hell lot of work. With 1100 recipes, 150 inc files
> and 5 minutes per recipe, this takes about 100 hours.
> Even with one minute per recipe it would be about 20 hours.
> Given that lots of the recipes for which this applies seem to be rarely used
> or are older versions of recipes that are not used any more, this seems
> somewhat a waste of time.
> Unless someone stands up as volunteer or someone develops an automated
> solution, I feel this is not going to happen.
> (and no: I feel no desire at all to spend hours and hours of my spare time
> to convert recipes most of which I am very unlikely to use).
> C is a quick hack without warranty that the recipe is not broken.
> I've no idea how you feel about this, but in my opinion I'd rather have a
> legacy staging recipe which works than a non-legacy staging one which might
> or might not be broken.
> That leaves option D. Of course removing all recipes that still use legacy
> staging is not desired, as that would also mean e.g. removal of the 53
> recipes identified by Koen. 
> However, the idea has some merits. Lots of the recipes with legacy staging
> seem to be old recipes. See e.g. the alsa-lib example . By removing these
> at least the time and work needed for B would be less.
> Now how to proceed?
> Well that is the reason for this email.
> I would like to hear your opinions on this, so feel free to voice them.
> If there is consensus we can start deploying things. If not we might ask the
> TSC for some guidance.
> To start off the discussion let me give you my personal view.
> I would be in favour to remove all recipes that use legacy staging and that
> do not fit into one of the following categories:
> - it is the most recent version of the package that is build by the recipe
> - it is not the most recent version but all more recent versions have
> DEFAULT_PREFERENCE = "-1"
> - it is pinned by a distro
> - it is a toolchain recipe (gcc, binutils, automake, autoconf and probably
> - it is a kernel or u-boot recipe
> The rationale behind this is that it removes a lot of recipes (and hence a
> lot of work converting).
> Note that the recipes are not gone. They will remain in the stable 2009
> branch and they can always be retrieved from git.
> So should someone for whatever reason need a recipe he/she can recover it,
> fix it and put it back.
> After that we can make an inventory of the work remaining.
> If there are relatively few recipes remaining it will become a lot simpler
> to find volunteers to clean up those.
> If there are many e.g. because an orphaned distro or machine pins lots of
> legacy recipes) we might consider a different scenario.
> This is my personal view, but ofc I would like to have a discussion on this
> and hear other opinions so preferably we can come to a consensus.
> The only request I have is that if you advocate a certain solution that you
> are willing to participate in realising that solution.
> E.g. it is easy to say that B is the desired scenario and that others should
> implement this.
> Best regards, Frans.
> PS: if the consensus is to start off removing the legacy recipes as I
> proposed above, I am more than willing to participate in that.
> and if someone has a good idea on how to automate identification of
> qualifying recipes (especially weeding out from the list, the ones we still
> want to retain), I'd love to learn about that too.
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
More information about the Openembedded-devel