Re: Need for offline binary configuration
Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@...>
My apologies for the late response. See below, I'll follow up on your second email as well...
On 11/20/12 9:09 AM, Venkata ramana gollamudi wrote:
Poky allows to build custom Linux for you, but we have cases where the postOne of the objectives that we are currently working toward is being able to start with the package feed (doesn't matter if it's rpm, deb or ipk files), generate a rootfs, configure the rootfs and then deploy the rootfs into an image.
The above should be able to be done on both a cross-configured environment or on the target via a traditional installer like mechanism.
The current model requires the image to be rebuilt to support these configuration.The current model can avoid many of the tasks associated with the build by using sstate-cache, but I agree that is not optimal for users who want to start with a known set of binaries and then tailor from that point. (This includes users expecting a more traditional Linux install experience or users who need immutable software from an upstream vendor.)
Offline Configuration tool (OCT), which allows a binary image customizationThis was factored into the work we are doing. I know many companies have an outside OSV that provides the build environment, support, etc.. and they feed into an Operating Systems group (or similar). This group then prepares the software according to the corporate guidelines (license restrictions, quality assurance, etc) and repackages it for consumption by others in the organization. Often time the output of the Operating System group is either a blessed source based system -- or a set of binaries that are blessed as being in conformance with that companies guidelines. This process repeats through the platform group and even individual projects -- with the eventual output being a product image including the blessed binaries, custom applications and configurations -- and a matching SDK.
Detailed use cases can be found in enhancement bug:3252For the next section, I'm going to assume the pool of binary packages is what we refer to as the package feeds in OpenEmbedded. This is simple a collection of binary packages that have been built from the build system that can be used to construct the rootfs. Each package feed is constructed based on a single "distribution" configuration file which sets the policies for the packages in the feed and distribution wide options, such as selinux, pam, etc.
a) Select/deselect required packages from pool of binary packages into final target image.The above is definitely considered in the work we've been talking about. This will require software that will take a list of the available items in the feed, present the user/developer with a way to enable the components they want on the target. (Note, there is an inherit requirement here that dependencies also be met, so things the user/developer may not have selected will either have to be installed to meet dependencies or will have to generate an error that dependencies can't be met.)
b) Provision to select external binary packages like ADT compiled applications as input and add them to final target image.As long as the external package is in the same format as the rest of the feeds, this should be easy to do. And I certainly expect that it will be needed.
c) Binary level Offline configuration can includesThe above are things we've talked about, but I don't believe there have been any formal plans to implement them at this time. The components necessary for the binary package based install -> rootfs generation have taken up most of our planning time at this point.
One thing I would love to see is a set of standard components (or a framework) that could be used for this type of configuration. But I believe it's very important that the configuration work both within the OpenEmbedded environment and externally in the "installer" like environment.
Security related configurationThis is something that I don't believe has really been addressed at all, but like the above we need a way to implement it.
Generate initrd in ramfs/ext3/... formatWe are already considering how to go from rootfs to deployable image. initrd just happens to be one of many potential image types. We've specified hard disk image (partition map, bootloader, individual partitions that comprise one or more rootfs). A flash based image -- instruction for flashing, and individual flash 'partitions' that will work similarly to the hard drive. A CD/DVD/USB based bootable system. And finally as a component of these an initrd rootfs that can be used as a component of the others are separately to instantiate the system before handing off control to one of the other types.
We have a huge advantage in OE that we can generate multiple rootfses from a given distribution configuration, we just don't currently have the tooling to put those rootfses together into the various images. I know Darren Hart at Intel is working on some of the ground work for the hard disk style images.
Considering the methods to support these in our current yocto model, following changes can be done.The first thing we would like to see is a -single- rootfs creation model for all of the modes. Build system, cross-install, and target-based-install. The way that I'm approaching this right now is by attempting to abstract out just the rootfs generation capabilities within the current build system. The intention is that you will be able to access interfaces to get a list of whats available to be installed, (what may be already installed,) a way to pass what to install and where to the environment. Then the same code will be executed to perform these actions. The actions will be designed to be package type agnostic as well.
Early R&D work is going on there, just to see if I can come up with something reasonable.
1) HOB can be the tool which can be extended to support theseI'm not sure HOB itself is the right tool for this, but there are certainly facets of HOB that would be needed in this kind of tool. The package selection, etc.
2) Binary package pool can be a minimal/partial sstate-cache, as complete sstate-cache is quite big and not required for product teams as they are not expected to build but just need to select and configure.There are multiple steps of binary package pool, each I think are valid. For someone wanting a source based system, with prebuilt binaries that can be locally modified -- sstate-cache is by far the best way to do this. For an applications group that needs to generate images and SDKs, but is never allowed to use anything but the corporate blessed binary packages, a different mechanism (package based) is likely what is needed. There is a lot of area though where either method may be needed (or desired).
My experience shows people familiar with traditional workstation based systems prefer the binary RPM approach, while hard-core embedded developers prefer source based systems. The reality is the world has fewer hard-code embedded developers and more folks used to the traditional environments, add to that the capabilities of today's embedded systems and it makes sense for a lot of people to start with blessed binaries, tailored for embedded systems, and simple add their integration of applications and configurations after.
3) Along with specific configuration UI implementation, a generic configuration model similar to kernel kconfig and menuconfig can be considered, in cases where more detailed offline configurations is required like detailed security configuration.This is absolutely need, but I think we need to get the general rootfs generation working and figured out before we spend too much time on this. However, if this is a high priority for you, it may make sense to start working on configuration. This is something that is definitely needed, and I don't believe anyone is actively working on.