MINUTES: OE TSC Meeting 03-Jan-2012
jefro at jefro.net
Tue Jan 17 18:04:10 CET 2012
OE TSC Meeting 03-Jan-2012
Attendees: Paul, Mark, Tom, Richard
Notes: Jefro (not present during meeting)
Agenda & Results
0) Welcome Paul
==> Jefro: update meeting invitation
[[NOTE: I don't have the invitation on my calendar! is it a zombie?]]
Agree on meeting chair
==> RP to send log to Jefro
psplash - update-alternatives
--> build multiple psplash executables, one for each required image
generally happy with update-alternatives to be used for this purpose
--> adopting SPDX namespace is reasonable
--> debate between doing a global (oe-core) switch to SPDX namings at this
point or continuing to using mappings to export the SPDX namings..
--> not a compelling reason at this time to
*) Do a global change
*) Enable a QA warning
*) Plan for a QA error
--> nice to create a -disabled- QA class to check this stuff that people
can enable for themselves
==> continue discussion on main mailing list
Items deferred to next meeting:
Further discussion - trivial patches
Status report on oe-core
Khem/Fray: Flagging on wiki for OE version
Fray: Yocto non-gplv3 testing
Khem: OE default source mirror
Next meeting: 17-Jan-2012
(17:04:08) bluelightning [~paul at pdpc/supporter/professional/bluelightning]
entered the room.
(17:04:14) fray: as Song said on the Yocto call.. we're all still
recovering from the holidays.. ;)
(17:04:23) fray: I'm trying to remember what I was doing prior to
disappearing for a week
(17:04:36) fray: a very nice and relaxing week.. (but I'm ready to "do"
(17:04:40) bluelightning: hi guys
(17:04:46) fray: welcome..
(17:04:56) fray: (if there is a meeting today) this is your first meeting
(17:05:06) bluelightning: it would be yes :)
(17:06:24) fray: I think we technically have enough for a quorum.. but I'm
not sure it makes sense to meet..
(17:06:57) bluelightning: I do have some issues to raise but I think it
would be better if there were more people to discuss them
(17:07:23) Tartarus [trini at pixelshelf.com] entered the room.
(17:07:24) mode (+v Tartarus) by ChanServ
(17:07:31) Tartarus: So I guess there is one this week, heh
(17:07:32) fray: ok.. pinging Tom worked.. ;)
(17:07:45) fray: I just pinged Khem as well
(17:08:51) mode (+v bluelightning) by ChanServ
(17:09:04) RP__: welcome to the TSC bluelightning! :)
(17:09:12) bluelightning: RP__: thanks :)
(17:09:12) Tartarus: Yes, welcome bluelightning!
(17:09:39) bluelightning: is there anything I need to know right now? I
guess I need to join the mailing list?
(17:11:05) Tartarus: yeah, join the ML
(17:11:11) fray: yup.. that is pretty much it..
(17:11:13) Tartarus: And I guess we need to get jefro to update the
(17:11:25) fray: ahh yes..
(17:12:09) RP__: bluelightning: we're currently meeting at this time for an
hour once every other week
(17:12:28) RP__: We're been missing Jefro recently as I'm not sure he can
make this time due to a conflict :(
(17:12:40) fray: ya.. :(
(17:13:18) RP__: bluelightning: what's your preferred address for the tsc
(17:13:35) bluelightning: RP__: @linux.intel one
(17:13:45) RP__: bluelightning: ok, I'll sub you
(17:13:49) bluelightning: RP__: thanks
(17:14:35) RP__: bluelightning: you should be on it now
(17:14:50) RP__: So, agenda?
(17:14:59) RP__: I think everyone is recovering after the holidays :/
(17:15:24) Tartarus: Yeah
(17:16:09) RP__: bluelightning: FWIW, we normally come up with an agenda
and then run through it
(17:16:24) RP__: bluelightning: did you have some topics you wanted to
(17:16:32) bluelightning: RP__: yes I had a couple
(17:17:21) bluelightning: the first was what to do about psplash, whether
we should use the update-alternatives method that a couple of people seem
(17:18:42) RP__: 1) Agree on meeting chair
(17:18:42) RP__: 2) psplash - update-alternatives
(17:18:42) RP__: 3) Status report on oe-core
(17:18:42) RP__: 4) Infrastructure
(17:19:02) RP__: Beth also wanted me to bring up license fields
(17:19:05) fray: (action items from the last meeting)
(17:19:15) bluelightning: the second was to try to move forward on the
issue of DISTRO_FEATURES expansion
(17:20:18) RP__: http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/TSC
(17:20:33) RP__: bluelightning: expansion? you mean extending the list?
(17:20:56) RP__: fray: were there any?
(17:20:58) bluelightning: RP__: yes, avoiding pain for distro maintainers
(17:21:30) fray: khem and I to talk to the person who suggested the
flagging on the wiki
(17:21:43) fray: (quick update, I don't believe that has happened, so it's
still a TODO)
(17:21:49) RP__: and we ran out of time on the trivial patch discussion
(17:22:01) fray: ahh yes
(17:22:03) bluelightning: RP__:
(17:22:13) bluelightning: last msg is where we're currently at
(17:22:32) bluelightning: am happy to continue the discussion to the
mailing list as long as someone responds
(17:22:37) RP__: bluelightning: did you read the TSC discussion on this?
(17:22:53) RP__: bluelightning: I can't remember where we left off :(
(17:23:06) bluelightning: RP__: I believe I did at the time but I might
need to refresh my memory
(17:23:18) fray: ohh my other action from last meeting.. Check on the
status of non GPLv3 testing..
(17:23:23) RP__: ok, does a meeting make sense today given where we are at?
(17:23:41) fray: there is a test run -- but there is some kind of error so
it's not being run regularly (or it is an is erroring)..
(17:23:49) fray: RP__ yes I think so
(17:25:29) ***RP__ is putting a better agenda together
(17:26:37) RP__: Agree on meeting chair
(17:26:37) RP__: psplash - update-alternatives
(17:26:37) RP__: License Field
(17:26:37) RP__: DISTRO_FEATURES (
(17:26:37) RP__: Further discussion - trivial patches
(17:26:37) RP__: Status report on oe-core
(17:26:37) RP__: Infrastructure
(17:26:37) RP__: Action Review:
(17:26:37) RP__: Khem/Fray: Flagging on wiki for OE version
(17:26:37) RP__: Fray: Yocto non-gplv3 testing
(17:26:37) RP__: Khem: OE default source mirror
(17:27:03) RP__: anyone want to chair?
(17:27:18) fray: I can if you want
(17:27:22) RP__: bluelightning: we're normally better organised than this,
(17:27:31) bluelightning: RP__: no worries :)
(17:27:33) RP__: fray: ok :)
(17:27:33) fray: (truely we are) ;)
(17:27:48) fray: ok.. so item 1, meeting chair done.. (just to verify,
someone is capturing the log to send to Jefro?)
(17:27:55) ***RP__ will do so
(17:28:07) fray: ok.. item 2.. psplash -- bluelightning?
(17:28:57) bluelightning: so it would be nice if we could make it easy to
customise the psplash within distro/other customisation layers
(17:29:36) fray: the issue as I understand it, how to provide the one file
that includes the image correct?
(17:29:46) bluelightning: fray: kind of
(17:29:58) fray: the file itself is compiled in? or loaded at runtime?
(17:30:03) RP__: fray: I think some people want to have multiple psplash
recipes for the different images
(17:30:07) bluelightning: it's compiled in, that makes it a little tricky
(17:30:09) bluelightning: when it was discussed on the mailing list koen
proposed we use his scheme which uses update-alternatives to switch between
(17:30:10) RP__: fray: compiled in
(17:30:12) fray: ok
(17:30:36) fray: my concern with u-a is that it still requires you to have
a custom (set) of psplash executables..
(17:30:37) bluelightning: personally I think update-alternatives is a
little bit of an overkill for something where only one ought to be
installed into an image
(17:30:45) fray: it almost sounds like we need a combination of the two..
(17:31:04) RP__: allowing the default psplash header to be overridden
easily would certainly be an improvement
(17:31:05) fray: one, a simple way to specify one (or more) image files..
and then a u-a to specify the "right" one to use
(17:31:22) bluelightning: RP__: my patch did improve that slightly
(17:31:29) fray: if given a set of splash files -- it should fairly easy to
iterate over them, I'd hope
(17:31:36) fray: then use the order to specify the u-a...
(17:32:00) fray: (I understand why koen wants multiple splash files.. I've
had similar customer requests in the past)
(17:32:04) RP__: The question is whether u-a makes sense for psplash
(17:32:23) bluelightning: fray: can you articulate the use case?
(17:32:30) fray: example.. one radio created for a car maker who has
multiple brands.. when the radio is first initialized it detects the brand
and selects the correct splash
(17:33:05) bluelightning: fray: hmm, but the same image is used for all of
those brands? no other customisation?
(17:33:09) fray: correct
(17:33:25) bluelightning: have to say I'm surprised, but fair enough
(17:33:49) fray: some image.. everything is controled by settings within
the radio that are determined based on initial "programming" of radio
settings when either first powered up -- or installed in the vehicle
(17:34:12) fray: (this is common today with the "MyGig" radios that
Chrysler uses.. not they do NOT run Linux...)
(17:34:50) bluelightning: fray: ok, so the determining setting is something
that might come from a boot parameter? or some location in nvram?
(17:35:20) fray: ...short answer -- yes
(17:35:45) bluelightning: just trying to figure out how we can make this
useful in the context of OE-core
(17:35:50) fray: the FS would contain all of the branded components, and it
would be selected prior to the customer getting it -- but that doesnt
change the contents of hte disk
(17:36:07) RP__: The question is whether u-a would provide for the variety
of ways in which people might want to customise things or are we better off
keeping out of this for OE-Core
(17:36:09) fray: I think best way is select a set of branded files -- and
then use the u-a..
(17:36:14) fray: anything beyond that gets to be very custom
(17:37:21) bluelightning: so psplash needs to be modified to read a
separate file for the image?
(17:37:48) RP__: There is next to no code in pslash
(17:37:55) fray: What I'm thinking is that we build multiple psplash
exectuables -- for each image
(17:37:59) fray: ('er.. graphic)
(17:38:18) fray: then dynamically package them into seperate packages using
u-a to set the order..
(17:38:36) RP__: Tartarus: any thoughts?
(17:38:45) Tartarus: nope
(17:38:46) fray: then the user could simply set something that says
"SPLASHFILE = file://foo1 file://foo2 ... file://fooN"
(17:38:58) bluelightning: hmm ok, that shouldn't be too tricky
(17:39:14) fray: then leave the default alone w/ oe branding and it's easy
(17:39:51) bluelightning: ok, so we're generally happy with u-a being used
(17:40:16) RP__: bluelightning: reluctantly
(17:40:17) fray: I think this is one of the cases where it makes sense
(17:40:25) bluelightning: ok
(17:40:26) fray: (it's overkill for most users though)
(17:40:31) RP__: you can make a case for u-a anywhere
(17:41:14) bluelightning: ok thanks guys
(17:41:33) RP__: so license fields - Did anyone read Beth's proposals?
(17:41:57) RP__: The question is what to do about the LICENSE field - do we
encourage any standardisation
(17:42:00) fray: yes -- I think it's good... I expect corner cases.. but
the obvious ones have likely been flushed out
(17:42:23) fray: I think we need to encourage it. If SPDX is the standard
naming we choose.. then we use that + an alternative namespace for thins
that don't "fit"
(17:42:34) RP__: I'd suggest the answer is yes, we'd like to see
standardisation but I'd propose we adopt SPDX with the addition that we map
"v" to "-"
(17:42:56) RP__: So we don't have to change all our GPLv2 to GPL-2
(17:43:06) Tartarus: Well
(17:43:19) Tartarus: Might that not be a pain to want now, for other
(17:43:20) fray: I was expecting we'd have a pass over everything.. and
then warn for things that don't match a known name..
(17:43:29) Tartarus: Or no, SPDX using tools won't be groking these files?
(17:43:30) fray: Tartarus thats my current thinking..
(17:43:47) fray: Tartarus SPDX tooling won't directly grok recipes.. those
(17:44:04) fray: SPDX tooling will need an XML SPDX file to grok.. one that
we can point to via the recipe..
(17:44:17) RP__: Any time we pass something to SPDX tools the v to -
mapping is straightforward
(17:44:30) fray: (and at some point, I'd expect we're going to want to
mandate the inclusion of such files.. but until the tooling exists.. there
is nothing to mandate)
(17:44:52) Tartarus: OK, so, continuing down the devils advocate path
(17:45:05) Tartarus: is there a reason other than not wanting to change a
bunch of files?
(17:45:09) fray: teh place where mapping would be needed is validation
tools.. things that read in the SPDX data (once it exists) and compares our
source/binary package declarations vs what the SPDX file says
(17:45:23) Tartarus: bikeshedding and all that, SPDX chose - for a reason
(17:45:42) Tartarus: Maybe we should just say we're adopting their standard
(with "+ for stuff that doesn't fit")
(17:45:52) Tartarus: rather than adopting except we like vN not -N
(17:46:21) fray: The discussion Paul and I and Beth have had on the mailing
(17:46:34) fray: SPDX naming w/ && and || designations..
(17:46:34) RP__: Tartarus: I just hate the idea of forcing users to update
metadata everywhere for a "v" to "-" change
(17:46:54) RP__: Tartarus: I don't mind other bits and cleaning up licenses
in general but that change seems more annoying than useful
(17:46:57) fray: along with an alternative namespace for things that don't
fit.. such as "other:Adobe:Reader"
(17:47:05) fray: prefix:company:license"
(17:47:34) RP__: Tartarus: its easier for people to spend time changing
metadata if there is a clear benefit to it
(17:48:15) fray: ya.. we still havn't hit the clear benefit area.. but I
expect there to be one
(17:48:20) Tartarus: Right, so I'm saying the clear benefit is "follow the
(17:48:41) Tartarus: Yeah, we could just fix it up in our export tool
(17:48:43) fray: by itself.. the change will do nothing since we don't
(yet) having tooling beyond white/black list -- correct?
(17:48:56) RP__: Tartarus: Is there any reason the - won't work or would
(17:49:07) RP__: fray: correct
(17:49:43) Tartarus: RP__: The - or the v ? My assumption is that the SPDX
folks already spent hour arguing v vs - and came to a conclusion that - is
(17:49:48) fray: I'm worried about the confusion bit mysel..
(17:49:52) Tartarus: I personally like LICvN
(17:50:24) bluelightning: I have to say I do too, but for none other than
(17:50:24) RP__: Tartarus: personally I do to...
(17:50:55) fray: (I'm quickly skimming to see if there is anything noted
(17:51:01) RP__: I've been around a few flag day type changes before for OE
and I just find them painful every time
(17:51:27) RP__: I appreciate this isn't quite a flag day but the only want
to do it is for people to start seeing tons of hard errors :(
(17:51:29) fray: they call what we're discussing the "SPDX License List
short form identifier"
(17:51:30) Tartarus: If the answer is that no, we don't see using SPDX
names as-is is enough of a benefit to do the search and replace then OK,
we'll just not do it until there is a clear benefit, other than just using
(17:52:07) fray: can I propose that we suggest future packages following
this SPDX License List short form identifies names.. :)
(17:52:18) RP__: I think mapping against their license types and building
up a standard for the LICENSE field is a good thing and there is a benefit
(17:52:25) fray: and at some point we validate and warn.. then we can
error if/when the tooling makes it reasonable?
(17:52:34) RP__: but mapping 1:1 with their names, I'm seeing no strong
(17:52:51) RP__: fray: don't warn unless we're going to force a switch
(17:53:03) RP__: we have way more important warning messages to fix and
this would drown them out
(17:53:07) fray: RP__ yes.. I meant that as a precursor to a switch, some
time in the future..
(17:53:17) fray: I wouldn't mind a (disabled) QA test now though
(17:53:18) ***RP__ wishes people would pay attention to warning messages
(17:53:19) Tartarus: I'd suggest that at some point we'll have people
writing recipes that have SPDX info and we'll see 'incorrect' LICENSE
(17:53:58) RP__: I'd like to see a list of known types we accept in the
(17:54:00) bluelightning: I think we already have SPDX naming mixed in
(17:54:07) RP__: bluelightning: we do
(17:54:14) fray: FYI.. it simply states the identifier and version number
should be separated by a "-"
(17:54:28) fray: so they are using that to indicate a parsing point but
that is all I see
(17:54:40) fray: FYI it's Appendix I on the spdx-1.0 specification
(17:54:57) fray: so they have GPL-2.0 and GPL-2.0+ later meaning that
version or greater
(17:54:59) RP__: fray: right, its likely so you can automatically split the
version from the main license
(17:55:14) bluelightning: aha, that would make sense
(17:55:15) fray: they also have things like GPL-3.0-with-GCC-exception
(17:55:27) RP__: and we support GPLv2 GPLv2.0 (with + variants)
(17:55:41) RP__: fray: I think we've started adopting those
(17:55:59) fray: ya.. if we did this (even w/ v = -) then GPLv2 is
(17:56:19) RP__: fray: We currently have a mapping table
(17:56:29) fray: ya.. I would expect we'll need to continue to have that
(17:56:38) fray: perhaps the mappign table is the right way to do the v ->
(17:56:45) fray: then ask people to switch to -?
(17:56:52) RP__: fray:
(17:57:13) fray: ahh yes I see..
(17:57:40) fray: ok.. so do we have a conclusion on this topic?
(17:58:13) fray: I'll summarize what I see then...
(17:58:29) fray: We still think SPDX naming and what Beth is proposing is
(17:58:58) fray: There is debate between doing a global (oe-core) switch to
SPDX namings at this point or continuing to using mappings to export the
(17:59:23) fray: other then risk of confusion, there is not a compelling
reason at this time to *) Do a global change *) Enable a QA warning *)
Plan for a QA error
(17:59:42) fray: (it might be nice to create a -disabled- QA class to check
this stuff that people can enable for themselves)
(17:59:50) fray: do you agree? did I miss anything?
(18:00:28) Tartarus: Sounds right
(18:00:45) fray: Ok.. so Beth is on the right track, we're non-commital
beyond that for now.. and we should keep monitoring..
(18:00:59) fray: ok.. it's 12 (central).. Do we want to continue or do we
need to call it?
(18:01:14) ***RP__ has to be somewhere else now :(
(18:01:24) fray: ok.. then we'll call it and defer the other items..
(18:01:36) bluelightning: sounds OK to me
(18:01:37) fray: if any of the items are pressing we should call a meeting
for next week -- otherwise next meeting in 2
(18:01:52) RP__: I don't think we did much with the action items :(
(18:02:09) RP__: status of OE-Core hasn't changed much over the holidays
(18:02:22) fray: agreed
(18:02:24) RP__: DISTRO_FEATURES is the main pressing item
(18:02:37) RP__: I'd suggest we try and continue that on the maining list
(18:02:48) RP__: maybe we can all try and have more discussion on that
(18:02:51) fray: ok.. sounds good to me..
(18:02:56) bluelightning: agreed, hopefully with people coming back from
holiday they will be able to respond
(18:03:18) RP__: sounds like a plan
(18:03:28) RP__: so meeting in a fortnight?
(18:03:37) fray: yup -- unless we decide otherwise
(18:03:40) bluelightning: yep
(18:03:41) fray: (via mailing list)
(18:03:44) RP__: right
(18:03:58) ***RP__ sends the log to jefro
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