[yocto] [OE-core] Carrier Grade layer proposal
Alexandru Vaduva
Alexandru.Vaduva at enea.com
Tue Jul 22 07:58:59 PDT 2014
A quick follow up to the previous e-mail:
I only mention that P1 compliance is until November is a best effort approach. This is very much influenced by the community, the available recipes, bugs etc.
The CGL compliance is tested against the qemuppc machine, being the fact that a real target is a bit hard to use by everyone.
There is also an idea about a CGL calculator that could offer information about the number of cgl requirements that are met and offer a compliance percentage (similar to LSB), but as I said this is just at the idea level.
I believe more info about the milestones and the activities that we commit on doing until those milestones will be available on the web page.
Please let me know if any information would be needed in the case I may have overlooked some useful parts of information. In that way I can also make sure this information will be also available when the web page will be up.
Alex
-----Original Message-----
From: Alexandru Vaduva
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 5:21 PM
To: 'Joe MacDonald'
Cc: Jeff Osier-Mixon; yocto at yoctoproject.org
Subject: RE: [yocto] [OE-core] Carrier Grade layer proposal
Hello again,
The P1 compliance until in November is a best effort approach.
Regarding the move to the openembedded.org location, we intend to do that as soon as possible after the web page will be put on place, as to make it simple for the community to interact with the layer and have all the needed information available in one place.
Alex
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe MacDonald [mailto:joe at deserted.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 4:53 PM
To: Alexandru Vaduva
Cc: Jeff Osier-Mixon; yocto at yoctoproject.org
Subject: Re: [yocto] [OE-core] Carrier Grade layer proposal
Hi Alex
[RE: [yocto] [OE-core] Carrier Grade layer proposal] On 14.07.22 (Tue 10:52) Alexandru Vaduva wrote:
> Hello Joe,
>
> Here at Enea we are preparing the steps needed for publishing the
> layer on the open embedded meta layers initiative:
> http://layers.openembedded.org/layerindex/branch/master/layers/
> For this we started working at a web page that should contain all the
> relevant information regarding meta-cgl. It will be available in a couple of weeks. Until then the layer will be available internally and the patches should be submitted as the README states: on the enealinux at lists.enea.com mailing list. We will try to make the switch to Open Embedded mailing list as quick as possible.
>
> Regarding the other B, C and D packages that we will try to add into the meta-cgl layer, I will post this information below, but keep in mind that this information will also be available on the web page.
> Category B packages:
> - ifenslave
> - evlog
> - crash
> - mipv6-daemon-umip
> - openl2tp
> Category C&D packages:
> - drbd
> - grsecurity
> - logcheck
> - makedumpfile
> - numactl
> - ocfs2-tools
> - pam_passwdqc
> - samhain
> - ltt-usertrace
> - ftrace
> The above lists correspond with only the P1 requirements that we try
> to fulfill for the moment. If there are any questions and/or suggestions regarding this CGL initialtive please address them to me and I will try to offer a response in the shortest time possible.
Thanks, that is really helpful, actually. So a couple of other things, though. I think I remember that early on you were intending to take your yocto-based system with meta-cgl (and, I imagine based on the contents of the README, the additional dependent layers) through a CGL registration. Really, that's great if you still are, but it sounds like maybe now you're planning a staged approach and are only targeting a subset of the CGL P1s for the end of the year / start of next year. Is that accurate, or are you looking at full P1 compliance by that date?
I ask mostly because I know doing a CGL distribution is a big effort (I've been down this road before) and it may be that you don't need to have the system complete before you can move it to the openembedded.org location and "get into the system" so to speak. Your team is pretty active, though, so I'm sure you'll also notice if things are going into other layers that can save you some time (e.g. the submission of a numactl recipe to meta-oe last week).
That, and if I've got an idea of where you're going, I'll be happy to take an early look at what you've got in terms of it's CGL-ness and hopefully make the eventual registration (if you go that route) move along quickly.
-J.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe MacDonald [mailto:joe at deserted.net]
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 10:58 PM
> To: Alexandru Vaduva
> Cc: Jeff Osier-Mixon; yocto at yoctoproject.org
> Subject: Re: [yocto] [OE-core] Carrier Grade layer proposal
>
> Hey Alex,
>
> I've been away from this for a bit but now I'm getting time to look at it again and I was wondering if you had any deeper level of detail you could share about the work going on in meta-cgl. Obviously since this is a new registration and one that will look rather different from all of the other CGL registrations currently, those of us in the CGL workgroup were quite interested to see this happen. Personally I'm also interested in this since it's the kind of thing I've been doing for a long time now and if I can, I'd like to help out. In particular, if you've got a list of, say, the category B+ items, that might be something I can do that will be independent of your work on the more active cat-A stuff. OTOH, cat-A is easy to work on since those are the items I saw when I was working with meta-cgl a month or so back. I know you guys are focused on your part of it, but if you had sort of a "here's how to help us" guide, that'd be awesome.
>
> Also, I probably missed it, but is the intent to use either the yocto list or the oe list for all meta-cgl discussions, or do you have a dedicated list we can sign up for? I see you have guidance for sending submissions to meta-cgl, but is that a list that's open to the community, or is it an internal alias / distribution list for Enea?
>
> Thanks,
> -J.
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Alexandru Vaduva <Alexandru.Vaduva at enea.com> wrote:
> > Hello Jeff,
> >
> > The errors are package related.
> > Meta-cgl can be seen as a non BSP specific layer (it can be viewed as the LSB from poky).
> > I already started fixing a number, of the already existing errors and the patches will be added upstream after proper testing.
> > I will continue the bug fixing and package integration (into the
> > core-image-cgl image) process and after that is finished I will continue with the Category B packages.
> >
> > I will also try to keep you guys informed about the latest updates,
> > mainly on the YPTM, but for those who cannot wait that much, there
> > is the Git repository with which they can interact:
> > http://git.enea.com/git/?p=linux/meta-cgl.git;a=summary
> >
> >
> > Have a good day,
> > Alex
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: jefro.net at gmail.com [mailto:jefro.net at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> > Jeff Osier-Mixon
> > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 9:22 PM
> > To: Alexandru Vaduva
> > Subject: Re: [OE-core] Carrier Grade layer proposal
> >
> > Thanks, Alex.
> >
> > Others on the mailing lists, if you have any comments on the contents of this new layer, please mention them on this thread.
> >
> > Re compilation errors, were they specific to a BSP or were they general errors in the packages?
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Alexandru Vaduva <Alexandru.Vaduva at enea.com> wrote:
> >> Hello Jeff,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The available layer is a work in progress.
> >>
> >> For the moment we have done an internal mapping of the packages
> >> needed inside meta-cgl layer. The mapping is done as following:
> >> A. Requirement that map against package/packages with recipes that
> >> already exists in Yocto
> >> A1. Requirement that map against package/packages with recipes
> >> already existing in meta-enea
> >> A2. Requirement that map against package/packages with recipes
> >> that exists in Yocto (but not in meta-enea) B. Requirement that map
> >> against package/packages without any recipe C. Requirement does not
> >> directly map against package/packages and needs some investigation.
> >> D. Requirement that no solution have been found after a more
> >> detailed investigation.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> When the release was made available on the public repository, the
> >> packages from the A1 and A2 were integrated, a bunch of them with compilation errors:
> >>
> >> - lksctp-tools
> >>
> >> - openais
> >>
> >> - pacemaker
> >>
> >> - openhpi
> >>
> >> - open-iscsi-user
> >>
> >> - open-iscsi-kernel
> >>
> >> - libcap-ng
> >>
> >> - cluster-glue
> >>
> >> - cluster-resource-agents
> >>
> >> The activity on the meta-cgl was resumed today and those build and
> >> integration errors will be dealt next.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On the longer run we will try to create recipes and/or fulfill all
> >> the other requirements from the class B, C, and D.
> >>
> >> Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Alex
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Jon Aldama
> >> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 1:07 PM
> >> To: Alexandru Vaduva; Cosmin Moldoveanu; Jenny Andersson; David
> >> Nyström
> >> Cc: Daniel Bornaz; Adrian Dudau
> >> Subject: RE: Carrier Grade layer proposal
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Roger that! Thanks Alexandru!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Alexandru Vaduva
> >> Sent: den 27 juni 2014 11:43
> >> To: Jon Aldama; Cosmin Moldoveanu; Jenny Andersson; David Nyström
> >> Cc: Daniel Bornaz; Adrian Dudau
> >> Subject: RE: Carrier Grade layer proposal
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello Jon,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> We will first have an internal meeting on Monday and after that I
> >> will offer an answer to Jeff.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Alex
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Jon Aldama
> >> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 12:32 PM
> >> To: Cosmin Moldoveanu; Jenny Andersson; David Nyström
> >> Cc: Alexandru Vaduva; Daniel Bornaz; Adrian Dudau
> >> Subject: RE: Carrier Grade layer proposal
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you Cosmin,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Alexandru, could you please respond Jeff at the mailing list? (see
> >> down
> >> below)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> Jon
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Cosmin Moldoveanu
> >> Sent: den 27 juni 2014 10:59
> >> To: Jenny Andersson; Jon Aldama; David Nyström
> >> Cc: Alexandru Vaduva; Daniel Bornaz; Adrian Dudau
> >> Subject: RE: Carrier Grade layer proposal
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Alexandru Vaduva will be main responsible for interfacing with
> >> community on meta-cgl topic. He will also attend Yocto Technical
> >> Meetings whenever necessary from now on.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> BR,
> >>
> >> /Cosmin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Jenny Andersson
> >> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 10:32 AM
> >> To: Jon Aldama; David Nyström; Cosmin Moldoveanu
> >> Cc: Valentin Cobelea
> >> Subject: RE: Carrier Grade layer proposal
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Cosmin,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> How took over after Valentin left Enea? Could someone in your team respond.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Jenny
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Jon Aldama
> >> Sent: den 27 juni 2014 09:28
> >> To: David Nyström; Jenny Andersson
> >> Cc: Valentin Cobelea
> >> Subject: FW: Carrier Grade layer proposal
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> David, Jenny,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Will any of you answer this?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> BTW, have you managed to file the Yocto compatibility application?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Jon
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Osier-mixon, Jeffrey [mailto:jeffrey.osier-mixon at intel.com]
> >> Sent: den 26 juni 2014 20:36
> >> To: David Nyström; davide.ricci at windriver.com; challinan at gmail.com;
> >> teodor.bobornilo at windriver.com; Valentin Cobelea;
> >> chase.maupin at ti.com; Jon Aldama; philip.balister at gmail.com;
> >> kevin_mccombe at mentor.com; akuster at mvista.com;
> >> jason.wessel at windriver.com; richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org;
> >> hui.geng at huawei.com; john_cherry at mentor.com;
> >> jeffrey.osier-mixon at intel.com
> >> Cc: Philip Balister
> >> Subject: YP: Carrier Grade layer proposal
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi all - this is a simple followup to our meeting at ELC regarding
> >> a meta-cgl layer, proposed by Enea.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The plan was to create a list of recipes to be included, and to
> >> start a discussion on the mailing list.There is a thread on the
> >> list from back in April, but I don't see anything more recent than
> >> that. Has there been any progress?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> thanks
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Openembedded-core mailing list
> >> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> >> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jeff Osier-Mixon @Intel
> > Yocto Project Community Manager http://yoctoproject.org
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > yocto mailing list
> > yocto at yoctoproject.org
> > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>
>
>
> --
> Joe MacDonald
> :wq
--
-Joe MacDonald.
:wq
More information about the yocto
mailing list