MINUTES: OE-TSC meeting 1-Sep-2011
jefro at jefro.net
Mon Oct 3 21:37:39 CEST 2011
My apologies for the delay on posting this one. This should complete the
set. Again, all minutes are now available at
MINUTES: OE-TSC meeting 1-Sep-2011
Attending: Mark, Richard, Khem, Koen
Notes: Jefro (not present)
1. pick a moderator
2. agenda items
a. Yocto update
b. oe-core release numbering
3. status on open subjects
2. a. steering hard to bug fixing and stabilisation, branching shortly
enabling free form user contrib repos on git.yp.org in 1-2 weeks
b. oe-core to be 2011.<something> (poky is "edison")
3. a. hitting critical mass on features, people starting to use it & file
ti somewhat confused about layers vs different repos for poky/yocto
b. RP volunteered; alphabetical election order (Khem, Koen, Mark, Tom)
(21:07:07) RP__: So I believe we have two agenda items plus the usual
(21:07:17) RP__: Do we have anything on the rolling agenda we have a
pressing need to cover?
(21:10:37) RP__: so, since everyone is quiet I assume everyone doesn't have
much to talk about
(21:10:58) RP__: Yocto wise, we're steering hard to bug fixing and
(21:11:16) RP__: I think we'll want to branch shortly
(21:11:26) RP__: which leads into my open of what to call the branch in
(21:12:00) RP__: The poky branch will be "edison" for this release
(21:12:23) koen: are we going to use the year.month like OE classic has?
(21:13:19) koen: I'm not terribly fond of it, but it beats plain numbers or
(21:14:31) RP__: I know people who hate year.month too
(21:14:35) RP__: so I doubt we can win
(21:15:10) khem [~khem at 99-57-141-118.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net]
entered the room.
(21:15:11) mode (+v khem) by ChanServ
(21:15:24) RP__: Is that branch going to be useful to people outside Yocto?
(21:15:30) RP__: I'm hoping the answer is yes?
(21:15:32) RP__: hi khem
(21:15:36) khem: hello
(21:16:02) koen: the oe-core branch is for the OE-core release, right?
(21:16:10) khem: traffic delayed me
(21:16:11) RP__: koen: yes
(21:16:19) RP__: khem: I pasted scroll back for you
(21:16:37) RP__: There wasn't much else of interest
(21:17:03) khem: thanks
(21:17:15) RP__: How about <year>.<number>
(21:17:34) koen: 2011.r1 ?
(21:17:40) koen: 2011.1 would be confusing :)
(21:17:40) RP__: yes
(21:17:48) fray: I thought when we talked earlier it was year . month
(21:17:48) khem: rp yy.mm is nicers
(21:17:54) fray: the month was the "expected" month vs actual..
(21:18:06) fray: i.e. if we expected to release in Sept.. it's be 2011.09
(21:18:12) ***RP__ is wondering if numbers like r1 and r2 make more sense
(21:18:12) fray: even if it didn't come out til 10 or 11
(21:18:30) khem: r1 could mean release n
(21:18:31) RP__: first release in 2011, second release in 2011
(21:18:37) koen: but we agree that at least the year would be in it?
(21:18:41) fray: IMHo it should be year.<something> I don't really care
about the something
(21:18:53) khem: yeah thats ok
(21:18:55) RP__: I think having the year is a reasonable reference frame
(21:20:00) khem: 2011r1 2011r2 ... seems reasonable
(21:20:12) koen: I'm fine with 2011<something>
(21:20:41) koen: next question, when do we ask the layer maintainers to
(21:21:04) khem: first core should be tagged/branched
(21:21:11) khem: then may be 2-3 weeks
(21:21:47) RP__: koen: I'd suggest sometime after core :)
(21:21:57) RP__: koen: The timing tbd by the layer maintainers?
(21:22:15) koen: I phrased it wrong, sorry
(21:22:29) koen: I meant when do we ask if they are going to branch
(21:22:38) koen: and if so, when
(21:23:21) RP__: koen: When OE-Core branches?
(21:23:38) RP__: and I guess another question for here is do we think
OE-Core is approaching branch point?
(21:24:04) koen: like kergoth I can't say if oe-core is getting better or
(21:24:28) khem: some layers might decide not to release but trunk is always
to be followed
(21:24:51) RP__: koen: Anything that would help make your mind up in that
(21:24:54) koen: we gain multilib, but the eglibc-locale stuff tooks weeks
to debug and fix
(21:25:48) khem: RP__: how about the hash-style fixes to gcc did that make
(21:26:07) khem: I have been occupied didnt follow ml lately
(21:26:15) fray: BTW I never posted, but I did try khem's gcc changes and
they worked fine..
(21:26:17) koen: RP__: I can't really put my finger on what's bothering me
(21:26:39) ***fray has been heads down in prelinker problems for the past 2
1/2 weeks so I've been out of the look on oe-core..
(21:26:42) RP__: khem: I need to look at those patches again, I think there
was something bothering me but offhand I can't remember what
(21:26:45) khem: for me bitbake's memory consumption bothers me
(21:26:49) fray: I need to get back into it this week to provide the updates
(21:27:09) RP__: koen: Any clues or you really just don't know?
(21:27:22) fray: 2-3 weeks ago I was "happy".. not sure how things have
been since then
(21:27:36) khem: RP__: there was an problem in gcc long standing distros
hacked gcc specs but this option solved it nicely
(21:28:47) RP__: khem: right, it was the implementation, not the concept
that worried me. I think it was because you were forcing people to use the
target hash pieces rather than making it optional which was how it was
(21:28:58) RP__: khem: e.g. trying to remove it from darwin after those
changes would be painful
(21:29:34) RP__: khem: re: bitbake memory consumption I agree it needs
(21:29:35) koen: RP__: I've been thinking about it all week and I think
OE-core has no "real" targets like "make foo-image run well on board X" so
various things fall between the cracks
(21:29:53) RP__: Sadly, the parallel parsing totally smashed all the
profiling ability I used to have with bitbake
(21:30:10) RP__: I'm now effectively blind wrt to performance (and memory
(21:30:55) RP__: koen: so its too generic and needs to specialise?
(21:31:16) khem: RP__: defaults remain same earlier it was implicit sysv and
now its just specified on cmdline
(21:31:16) RP__: koen: this is partly why there is real hardware in
(21:31:33) RP__: khem: you're not understanding what I'm saying
(21:31:38) koen: RP__: I think more people like pb_ and me need to get
serious about oe-core and get more involved
(21:31:51) RP__: khem: You now force "--linker-hash-style" or whatever it is
(21:32:05) RP__: koen: it is happening over time
(21:32:16) RP__: koen: pb_ is reporting bugs which is a good sign he's using
(21:32:24) koen: yes
(21:32:25) RP__: and the frequency is down
(21:32:36) RP__: which I'm hoping is good
(21:32:41) koen: yes
(21:33:01) koen: I'm saying that with more people like him, we'd catch bugs
(21:33:06) khem: RP__: it was foced before too. just that defualt was to not
pass anything and if you pass nothing then --hash-style=sysv is assumed
(21:33:26) RP__: khem: no, it wasn't. You could override one variable and it
wouldn't be in LDFLAGS
(21:33:26) khem: and that should work on darwin too
(21:33:44) fray: my feeling is we're hitting critical mass finally on
features and such that people are using it (and finding problems)
(21:33:45) RP__: now you have to override LDFLAGS to get rid of it
(21:33:46) koen: RP__: anyway, it's just a subjective feeling I have
(21:33:59) fray: I'm still a bit stumped on the adduser issue.. (todays
(21:34:09) RP__: koen: thats fine, I'm just interested in those feelings
(21:34:26) RP__: fray: I haven't looked at that one yet
(21:34:37) khem: -export TARGET_LDFLAGS = "-Wl,-O1
(21:34:37) khem: +export TARGET_LDFLAGS = "-Wl,-O1
(21:34:41) ***RP__ is suffering interrupt stack overflow
(21:34:54) fray: it shows he's got a slightly different (small system) usage
then we'd been testing against..
(21:34:59) fray: which is good!
(21:35:02) RP__: khem: right. before you can set TARGET_LINK_HASH_STYLE = ""
and it removes the option from LDFLAGS
(21:35:12) khem: so what changed ?
(21:35:18) RP__: khem: how do I not pass that option to LDFLAGS after your
(21:35:18) khem: default is still sysv
(21:35:35) khem: what would you gain by not passing it
(21:35:48) khem: I understand one option less on cmdline
(21:35:55) RP__: khem: general configurability regarding toolchains
(21:35:59) khem: since its default
(21:36:11) RP__: khem: We do not want to hardcode the toolchain options
(21:36:27) khem: hmmm so non GNU ld
(21:36:33) RP__: right
(21:36:40) RP__: I don't want to make assumptions in the core
(21:36:51) RP__: once we start to its a slippery slope
(21:37:06) RP__: this case may or may not be minor, its the principle
(21:37:35) RP__: fray: agreed, I'm pleased to see it
(21:37:59) koen: so, before I forget, any volunteers to poke the board about
(21:38:17) RP__: koen: I don't mind...
(21:38:31) koen: philip asked for a description of what we wanted to help
(21:38:50) RP__: koen: description of what?
(21:39:48) RP__: koen: perhaps since you know what Philip wants you could
tell him? :)
(21:41:26) khem: on infra side git move to final destination is still
(21:42:07) RP__: khem: ok
(21:42:21) RP__: Yocto git/web services have moved to their new home now
(21:42:36) khem: cool
(21:42:40) RP__: Also, gitolite now supports free form user repos
(21:42:43) koen: RP__: who will be stepping down :)
(21:42:54) khem: it was me
(21:43:12) RP__: Khem, Koen, Mark, Tom in that order?
(21:43:19) RP__: alphabetical iirc
(21:43:46) RP__: we're enabling free form user contrib repos on git.yp.org
(21:44:41) ***koen was amused by people not getting a pull model on oe-devel
(21:46:33) RP__: ok, so anything left to discuss?
(21:46:57) RP__: koen: I guess if you've not been around the kernel
community it might be a bit more alien
(21:48:32) khem: RP__: the user repos ?
(21:48:33) khem: cool
(21:48:41) khem: I would use it
(21:48:54) RP__: khem: on git.yp.org?
(21:48:58) khem: RP__: yes
(21:49:21) koen: ah, that dropbear failure wasn't due to fedora 15
(21:49:46) RP__: khem: ok, we're about to trail it with a few intel people
and it will take 1-2 weeks to get cgit to show the repos but I'll ping you
then about using it
(21:49:57) khem: RP__: ok
(21:50:38) koen: RP__: what are your thoughts on ditching the combined repo
and use seperate git repos for poky/yocto in the future?
(21:50:54) RP__: koen: which combined repo?
(21:51:00) RP__: koen: you mean the -contrib ones?
(21:51:40) koen: no, poky
(21:52:08) RP__: koen: so drop the poky repo and replace it with nothing,
(21:52:35) koen: something like that
(21:52:39) RP__: koen: why?
(21:53:12) koen: it confuses the hell out of TI people
(21:53:14) RP__: people actually find it easy to use so I'm reluctant to
make thing harder for them
(21:53:48) RP__: koen: I'm sure they'll figure it out ;-)
(21:53:59) koen: I'm not saying it isn't easy to use
(21:54:13) koen: but it is showing a lack of faith in layers from the yocto
(21:54:42) RP__: I'd disagree with that
(21:55:17) RP__: and its ironic given I've done more than most people to
promote layers in the first place :)
(21:55:35) koen: but you see why I'm saying that?
(21:55:56) RP__: koen: yes, I can see why you could say it
(21:56:45) RP__: I don't have any objection to others packaging up
collections of layers, be it via scripts or an automated repo
(21:56:47) koen: I don't have strong opinions on it, just passing on the
(21:57:16) RP__: Yocto tends to the latter since its easier for newcomers to
(21:57:41) koen: the layer tooling blew up, so I'm not updating the angstrom
combined repo anymore
(21:58:02) RP__: koen: thanks. I'm hoping with a little more time there will
(21:58:41) RP__: koen: hopefully we'll iron out issues like that with the
(21:58:57) koen: if only git submodules worked....
(21:59:10) khem: koen: for my needs git submodules work
(21:59:24) RP__: ok, before we start on that I'd like to close the meeting
Jeff Osier-Mixon http://jefro.net/blog
Yocto Project Community Manager @Intel http://yoctoproject.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tsc