Date   

Re: AppArmor with BusyBox

Quentin Schulz
 

Hi Khem,

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 08:33:08PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 3:34 PM Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@...>
wrote:

I've added `IMAGE_INSTALL += "findutils"` to my `conf/local.conf`
file, and it seems like it was enough. There weren't any build
conflicts.

Should the AppArmor recipe be upgraded in some way to indicate that it
needs a full-featured findutils package instead of a busybox one?

I think it will be useful to dig a bit further and find out what option
does it need from findutils package sometimes this could be solved by using
compatible options etc
Not sure to really understand the question, but the -d option of xargs
is for specifying a delimiter different than the default space.

There is no support for such a thing in Busybox implementation of
xargs. Usually options for tools in Busybox are specified at the
beginning of the C file:
https://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/findutils/xargs.c
Line 17 to 71.

If one looks for delimiter keyword in the file, nothing configurable is
available, it's either space or EOF that is matched.

I'm naive enough to think it might be not too hard to add this option to\
Busybox implementation.

Cheers,
Quentin


Re: AppArmor with BusyBox

Armin Kuster
 

On 4/27/21 8:33 PM, Khem Raj wrote:


On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 3:34 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
<aladyshev22@... <mailto:aladyshev22@...>> wrote:

I've added `IMAGE_INSTALL += "findutils"` to my `conf/local.conf`
file, and it seems like it was enough. There weren't any build
conflicts.

Should the AppArmor recipe be upgraded in some way to indicate that it
needs a full-featured findutils package instead of a busybox one?


I think it will be useful to dig a bit further and find out what
option does it need from findutils package sometimes this could be
solved by using compatible options etc 

If we find out that it has hard dependency on findutils then it should
be added to apparmor recipe RDEPENDS
You are using systemd.

There is a comment regarding coreutils and findutils

|# Add coreutils and findutils only if sysvinit scripts are in use

Patches welcome.

- Armin


|



Best regards,
Konstantin Aladyshev

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 5:08 PM Quentin Schulz
<quentin.schulz@...
<mailto:quentin.schulz@...>> wrote:
>
> Hi Konstantin,
>
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 01:45:30PM +0300, Konstantin Aladyshev
wrote:
> > I'm using the OpenBMC system
(https://github.com/openbmc/openbmc) and
> > I've tried to enable AppArmor functionality from the
'meta-security'
> > layer.
> >
> > To achieve this I've added these strings to my local.conf file:
> > DISTRO_FEATURES_append = " apparmor"
> > IMAGE_INSTALL += "apparmor"
> >
> > The AppArmor functionality was installed to my image, but
> > unfortunately I've come to this issue:
> >
> > kernel: AppArmor: AppArmor initialized
> > kernel: AppArmor: AppArmor Filesystem Enabled
> > kernel: AppArmor: AppArmor sha1 policy hashing enabled
> > systemd[1]: systemd 247.3+ running in system mode. (+PAM -AUDIT
> > -SELINUX -IMA -APPARMOR -SMACK +SYSVINIT -UTMP -LIBCRYPTSETUP
-GCRYPT
> > -GNUTLS -ACL +XZ -LZ4 -ZSTD -SECCOMP +BLKID -ELFUTILS +KMOD
-IDN2 -IDN
> > -PCRE2 default-hierarchy=hybrid)
> > systemd[1]: Starting AppArmor initialization...
> > apparmor[113]: Starting AppArmor profiles
> > apparmor[128]: xargs: invalid option -- 'd'
>
> Busybox implementation of xargs does not support specifying a
delimiter.
>
> I suggest you to install the full-featured xargs which is
provided by
> the findutils recipe.
>
> You probably need to disable xargs Busybox implementation otherwise
> there'll be a conflict (you'll know, Yocto won't create the image).
>
> Cheers,
> Quentin






Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 6/7] default-distrovars.inc: add wayland/opengl to default distro features

Kevin Hao
 

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:09:51PM -0400, Randy MacLeod wrote:
Cross-posting to yocto since this is of general interest.

On 2021-04-23 2:02 p.m., Alexander Kanavin wrote:
This puts them on equal terms with x11 distro feature
(which I think is due).

Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@...>
---
meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc b/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
index 9fcc10f83a..384ee7fc98 100644
--- a/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
+++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ LOCALE_UTF8_ONLY ?= "0"
LOCALE_UTF8_IS_DEFAULT ?= "1"
LOCALE_UTF8_IS_DEFAULT_class-nativesdk = "0"
-DISTRO_FEATURES_DEFAULT ?= "acl alsa argp bluetooth debuginfod ext2 ipv4 ipv6 largefile pcmcia usbgadget usbhost wifi xattr nfs zeroconf pci 3g nfc x11 vfat"
+DISTRO_FEATURES_DEFAULT ?= "acl alsa argp bluetooth debuginfod ext2 ipv4 ipv6 largefile pcmcia usbgadget usbhost wifi xattr nfs zeroconf pci 3g nfc x11 vfat wayland opengl"
DISTRO_FEATURES ?= "${DISTRO_FEATURES_DEFAULT}"
IMAGE_FEATURES ?= ""
We (Wind River) already drop the x11 DF from some of our distros and
we'd likely do the same for wayland and opengl so while this seems
like the wrong change for headless systems it is one we could deal with.

There was some discussion about this topic on the tech call today and
people were concerned about BSP support for opengl since the software
rendering in mesa is horridly slow.

Kevin, Bryan,
Can you comment if you think we'd have any show-stopper problems
with opengl support for BSPs?
Thanks for the notice. Hmm, it seems that we have done little validation
for the weston image on the Yocto BSPs, I got a boot failure with the
weston image on my beaglebone black board. I will try to figure out what is
wrong there. But I don't think it should block the change in this patch.

Thanks,
Kevin


Joshua said that weston has a usable RDP (remote desktop backend) but
I'm not sure how usable it is especially for single application sharing.
This contrasts with x11 where you can use X11 forwarding over
ssh trivially for whole desktops or an application.

In conclusion, I see the value in pushing yocto forward but we may need
to wait for agreement from BSP folks so let's see what they say.

../Randy






--
# Randy MacLeod
# Wind River Linux


Yocto Technical Team Minutes, Engineering Sync, for April 27, 2021

Trevor Woerner
 

Yocto Technical Team Minutes, Engineering Sync, for April 27, 2021
archive: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ly8nyhO14kDNnFcW2QskANXW3ZT7QwKC5wWVDg9dDH4/edit

== announcements ==
The upcoming Yocto Project Summit is taking place May 25-26 2021
details: https://www.yoctoproject.org/yocto-project-virtual-summit-2021/
registration: https://www.cvent.com/d/yjq4dr/4W?ct=868bfddd-ca91-46bb-aaa5-62d2b61b2501

== disclaimer ==
Best efforts are made to ensure the below is accurate and valid. However,
errors sometimes happen. If any errors or omissions are found, please feel
free to reply to this email with any corrections.

== attendees ==
Trevor Woerner, Stephen Jolly, Trevor Gamblin, Jan-Simon Möller, Steve
Sakoman, Joshua Watt, Richard Purdie, Bruce Ashfield, Jere Kiikari, Scott
Murray, Randy MacLeod, Armin Kuster, Saul Wold, Michael Opdenacker, Michael
Halstead, Alejandro H, Jon Mason, Tim Orling

== notes ==
- 3.1.7 released last week
- patches flowing into master 3.4-m1
- added checking for key layers on AB (i.e. member layers)
- libseccomp moved to oe-core
- add opengl to default DISTRO_FEATURES proposal
- 2 OE positions available on TSC

== general ==
TW: OEHH is tomorrow


RP: adding more layers and layer checks for heavily-used layers (e.g.
meta-virtualization). we’re currently testing 8 layers, last week only 2
passed, now (i believe) they’re all passing the various checks
TW: what tests?
RP: yocto check-layer test, e.g. is there a README file, e.g. pass through the
metadata without the layer, add the layer, repass through the metadata and
verify that sstate checksums don’t change
TW: any building?
RP: no, just parsing. also does sub-layer testing too (e.g.
meta-openembedded). led to finding a bug in the script


RP: adding libseccomp in core unblocks meta-virtualization


RP: AlexK is pushing hard to drop x11. not seeing any objections on the
mailing list (hard to believe)
Randy: are we covered if we switch?
RP: i don’t think that’s entirely possible
ScottM: software rendering is painfully slow (e.g. testing)
Randy: okay, performance is slow, but full support?
JPEW: isn’t this change just changing package building options?
ScottM: mostly. i think it should be okay, what if someone enables both
wayland and x11?
RP: i’m concerned that there are BSP layers that don’t support opengl,
this makes it a requirement for all BSP layers
TW: i believe there a case in meta-raspberrypi if the user chooses VC graphics
Armin: what do you mean “dropping x11”? removing x11 entirely?
RP: if AlexK gets his way
Armin: can we move it to meta-oe?
RP: i don’t think removing it is on the table?
Randy: so removing x11 server and replacing it with wayland-x11 server
ScottM: it’ll have to happen sooner or later. many desktop distros are
moving to wayland and away from x11
TimO: so a good drop before the next LTS?
ScottM: that’s what i was thinking, maybe a tsc decision
RP: opengl is a requirement for wayland?
JPEW: not a hard requirement, but in practice…
RP: uncomfortable about making opengl a default
RP: uncomfortable with making this a DISTRO_FEATURE when maybe “graphics”
is a BSP question
TW: what about headless builds?
J-SM: shouldn’t a headless build not need graphics things?
TW: there’s probably some package that builds differently with opengl on or
off but would be pulled into a headless build
JPEW: opengl DISTRO_FEATURE is not the right thing to check for this
RP: dbus builds differently depending on x11
ScottM: i’d like to look at how AlexK has implemented it, need to make sure
the wayland features support the existing x11 features
RP: nobody’s commented on the mailing list. the change has already been made
in poky and nobody said anything and nothing blew up
ScottM: are you going to switch away from core-image-sato to something weston
RP: we’ll have to come up with something
Armin: i know the mali stuff is hard to get working. Khem does a lot of builds
with graphics stuff, so he’ll probably be the first one to say something
if we switch. the blob drivers lag so far behind
ScottM: true, there were some cases where we couldn’t update for a long time
because we had to wait for vendor blobs to catch up and release weston
things
Randy: is remote desktop possible (ssh -X)?
ScottM: there’s nothing built-in, but there are things that are being worked
on, there are a couple options, mostly over pipewire
JPEW: weston has an RDP backend
ScottM: not as easy as the old ssh -X, but it works
JPEW: with weston there’s the possibility to just forward 1 app instead of
the entire server (rootless)
TimO: we’re in an intermediate phase and vendor support is hard
Armin: it’s like the python2 → python3 change
TW: does that mean a meta-x11?
Armin: probably, not sure if it’ll be public, but somebody’s going to have
to solve that problem (MV, WR, …)
RP: client vs server
JPEW: depends on what you’re trying to do. if an app does crazy things with
the server (e.g. send key events to another app) then wayland doesn’t
permit that
TimO: sato and matchbox are looking clunky these days
JPEW: phosh might be a possibility. i built it recently and it seems good.
uses a lot of gnome (meta-gnome) but it does build and work
TrevorG: i played with it recently too, seemed okay


TW: any umn patches?
RP: actually i did check, didn’t see anything


Saul: qmp. i think there’s a delay in the socket being created on CentOS
RP: i checked and tested your patch and it seemed to work, so i merged it into
master. Thank you for getting it there
Saul: now we’ll see if it triggers, and if it does, then we can add to what
it does. ping me when you see a failure and we’ll look at it
Randy: do we have to pick up the logs manually?
Saul: yea, they’re dumped into a directory (same place as other logs)
Randy: hook it up to the latency monitoring things?
Saul: possibly
RP: there’s an env var set to a path for reproducible build pages generated.
same place Randy is putting some logging and dd test. so we should teach
qmp about that path as a place to put things if’when things go wrong
Saul: part of OE-qa?
RP: yes, the env var makes it into the datastore as a place to put things if
set (OEQA_DEBUGGING_SAVED_OUTPUT). the only tricky part is we’re not
setting it for all builds, but we can look into it


Randy: with this last release (hardknott) the timing for when the branches
were created (hardknott) in various layers was different this time around
and it messed up our (WR) release schedule. could we have a policy on it
RP: individual layers are up to individual maintainers, can’t create a
policy
Randy: i think the one for meta-oe got created a bit too early. could we make
sure that doesn’t happen again?
Armin: maybe ask Khem
RP: with core we start the release branch early but then it only splits when
there’s a diverging commit. then we also tag releases
Armin: it was quite early with meta-oe this time
TimO: it was noticed
Bruce: we had to do some dancing this time
Armin: there are lots of layers that don’t branch, so you just have to
qualify against a specific SHA of their master, but then that can break
when things move on
RP: we have a tagging policy that has a “yocto” prefix and the hope was
that layers would use those tags and that it would be uniform over the
ecosystem
Armin: use the yocto- ones or the hardknott-25 one?
RP: not the hardknott-25 one, that’s linked to poky. it's something i've
wanted to clean up for a while
TW: couldn’t we link all layers _and_ bitbake too? why isn’t there a
hardknott layer in bitbake? i thought i had asked about this in the past
and was told that it couldn’t be done because they’re independent projects
RP: you're thinking poky release numbering vs bitbake versioning. i’d like
to get rid of the poky version numbers, that’s true, but we have been
keeping up with separate between the layers and the tool (bitbake).
Randy: there are tags between them
RP: not sure why the point releases aren’t there in the bitbake tags.
MichaelH maybe we could look into this?
MichaelH: okay, we’re still following procedures from a while ago, so
there’s no reason the procedures can’t be updated. we’ll look into
adding the point release yocto tags into bitbake
RP: then you'll find that there are "yocto-"-prefixed tags throughout the
ecosystem (e.g. oe-core, bitbake, etc) i'm hoping all layers follow suit


Re: AppArmor with BusyBox

Khem Raj
 



On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 3:34 PM Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@...> wrote:
I've added `IMAGE_INSTALL += "findutils"` to my `conf/local.conf`
file, and it seems like it was enough. There weren't any build
conflicts.

Should the AppArmor recipe be upgraded in some way to indicate that it
needs a full-featured findutils package instead of a busybox one?

I think it will be useful to dig a bit further and find out what option does it need from findutils package sometimes this could be solved by using compatible options etc 

If we find out that it has hard dependency on findutils then it should be added to apparmor recipe RDEPENDS 



Best regards,
Konstantin Aladyshev

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 5:08 PM Quentin Schulz
<quentin.schulz@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Konstantin,
>
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 01:45:30PM +0300, Konstantin Aladyshev wrote:
> > I'm using the OpenBMC system (https://github.com/openbmc/openbmc) and
> > I've tried to enable AppArmor functionality from the 'meta-security'
> > layer.
> >
> > To achieve this I've added these strings to my local.conf file:
> > DISTRO_FEATURES_append = " apparmor"
> > IMAGE_INSTALL += "apparmor"
> >
> > The AppArmor functionality was installed to my image, but
> > unfortunately I've come to this issue:
> >
> > kernel: AppArmor: AppArmor initialized
> > kernel: AppArmor: AppArmor Filesystem Enabled
> > kernel: AppArmor: AppArmor sha1 policy hashing enabled
> > systemd[1]: systemd 247.3+ running in system mode. (+PAM -AUDIT
> > -SELINUX -IMA -APPARMOR -SMACK +SYSVINIT -UTMP -LIBCRYPTSETUP -GCRYPT
> > -GNUTLS -ACL +XZ -LZ4 -ZSTD -SECCOMP +BLKID -ELFUTILS +KMOD -IDN2 -IDN
> > -PCRE2 default-hierarchy=hybrid)
> > systemd[1]: Starting AppArmor initialization...
> > apparmor[113]: Starting AppArmor profiles
> > apparmor[128]: xargs: invalid option -- 'd'
>
> Busybox implementation of xargs does not support specifying a delimiter.
>
> I suggest you to install the full-featured xargs which is provided by
> the findutils recipe.
>
> You probably need to disable xargs Busybox implementation otherwise
> there'll be a conflict (you'll know, Yocto won't create the image).
>
> Cheers,
> Quentin




Re: Can layer maintainers add yocto-X.Y tags for yocto-3.3 and later?

Randy MacLeod
 

Adding Robert, Hongxu and Qi who are likely interested in this topic
for future releases.

On 2021-04-27 3:03 p.m., akuster808 wrote:
On 4/27/21 9:48 AM, Randy MacLeod wrote:
Hi,


I've CCed some of the maintainers of more widely used Yocto layers
to get comments on about tagging. Please add in people who I may
have missed.


For a while now, oe-core has had a yocto-X.Y tag in addition to the
release branch name. This helps users easily find the exact commit
that corresponds to the say 3.3 GA release. There have been some
omissions in tagging but Michael and Richard are adjusting the
release process so that tagging will happen more consistently.

Most yocto layers have not adopted the tagging perhaps because they
weren't aware of it so that's why I'm writing this email. Tagging
will make it easy to find the first commit for a specific release
independent of what the branching policy of a layer is. Layer
maintainers sometimes create the release branch in advance of
when oe-core is released and by adding the tag, it would make it
clear when the layer considers content to be officially released.
So the official starting point is what you are looking for?
Yes. It's always bothered me that the tag wasn't there and now
that oe-core/bitbake/... have been doing it, it would be nice to see
other layers add the start-of-release tag. Usually, it's clear
since you can find the first commit that is unique to the branch.
It's often an update to a README or a layer.conf file that you can find
using 'git merge-base' but the tag will make it simple to locate and
in the case of meta-oe, where the branch came well before the oe-core release, the tag may not be the first commit on the 'hardknott' branch.



Is there any
expectation to tag for dot release alignment?
It would be really nice to have but it's less important to me at least.
What do you think of tagging dot upcoming releases for
meta-oe/dunfell Armin?


Of course it's up to users to decide if they are going to follow
the HEAD of a branch or, for some reason, stick with a tagged commit
or private branch off that commit.
What's more important, tag or branch? Many layers hosted on git.yp.org
don't have the 'hardknott' branch.  If the discipline to create a new
branch is not their, I have a hard time believing 'tagging' will be high
on their list.
I don't expect 100% of layers to do this but hopefully maintatiner will
listen users/submitters we'll get some traction. Also for those layers
that don't want to maintain a branch they *might* not mind adding
the tag to at least record where they were when Yocto branched.



Are there any concerns about attempting to do this for yocto-3.3
and later?
Tagging in Poky has a meaning of a fully QA set of sources at a given
point of time.  It may be interpreted by users that if a tag showed up
in other layers, those layers are also fully tested.
I suppose but once people are around for a while, they'll come to
understand how other layers don't go through the same QA cycle.



Should we make it a requirement for yocto compliance?
I think you mean 'Yocto Compatible'.
Right.

Branching is already a requirement
IIRC as the program is against a specific branch.
Yes, this would be an additional requirement or request.
The benefits that I see I've mostly already explained but
I also like having a numerical uniform string that I can us
to remember the pseudo-random branch names! :)


Thanks for the comments Armin.

../Randy

-armin

Should it be a feature tested by the yocto compliance script?



Here's what's in oe-core and bitbake now:
$ cd .../oe-core.git
$ git tag -l | grep yocto-3
yocto-3.0
yocto-3.1
yocto-3.1.7
yocto-3.2
yocto-3.2.1
yocto-3.3

$ cd bitbake/
$ git tag -l | grep yocto-3
yocto-3.0
yocto-3.1
yocto-3.2

--
# Randy MacLeod
# Wind River Linux


[PATCH yocto-autobuilder-helper] config.json: update variable for change in buildstats.bbclass

sakib.sajal@...
 

Signed-off-by: Sakib Sajal <sakib.sajal@...>
---
config.json | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/config.json b/config.json
index fc83012..f82664c 100644
--- a/config.json
+++ b/config.json
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@
"RUNQEMU_TMPFS_DIR = '/home/pokybuild/tmp'",
"BB_HEARTBEAT_EVENT = '60'",
"BB_LOG_HOST_STAT_ON_INTERVAL = '1'",
- "BB_LOG_HOST_STAT_CMDS = 'oe-time-dd-test.sh 100'"
+ "BB_LOG_HOST_STAT_CMDS_INTERVAL = 'oe-time-dd-test.sh 100'"
]
},
"templates" : {
--
2.25.1


Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 6/7] default-distrovars.inc: add wayland/opengl to default distro features

Otavio Salvador <otavio.salvador@...>
 

Em ter., 27 de abr. de 2021 às 13:10, Randy MacLeod
<randy.macleod@...> escreveu:

Cross-posting to yocto since this is of general interest.

On 2021-04-23 2:02 p.m., Alexander Kanavin wrote:
This puts them on equal terms with x11 distro feature
(which I think is due).

Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@...>
---
meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc b/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
index 9fcc10f83a..384ee7fc98 100644
--- a/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
+++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ LOCALE_UTF8_ONLY ?= "0"
LOCALE_UTF8_IS_DEFAULT ?= "1"
LOCALE_UTF8_IS_DEFAULT_class-nativesdk = "0"

-DISTRO_FEATURES_DEFAULT ?= "acl alsa argp bluetooth debuginfod ext2 ipv4 ipv6 largefile pcmcia usbgadget usbhost wifi xattr nfs zeroconf pci 3g nfc x11 vfat"
+DISTRO_FEATURES_DEFAULT ?= "acl alsa argp bluetooth debuginfod ext2 ipv4 ipv6 largefile pcmcia usbgadget usbhost wifi xattr nfs zeroconf pci 3g nfc x11 vfat wayland opengl"
DISTRO_FEATURES ?= "${DISTRO_FEATURES_DEFAULT}"
IMAGE_FEATURES ?= ""

We (Wind River) already drop the x11 DF from some of our distros and
we'd likely do the same for wayland and opengl so while this seems
like the wrong change for headless systems it is one we could deal with.
Adding wayland seems Ok but forcing the opengl support doesn't seems a
good default. Especially because we just also ensure software
rendering is also wrong (slow or not).

--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750


Re: AppArmor with BusyBox

Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@...>
 

I've added `IMAGE_INSTALL += "findutils"` to my `conf/local.conf`
file, and it seems like it was enough. There weren't any build
conflicts.

Should the AppArmor recipe be upgraded in some way to indicate that it
needs a full-featured findutils package instead of a busybox one?

Best regards,
Konstantin Aladyshev

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 5:08 PM Quentin Schulz
<quentin.schulz@...> wrote:

Hi Konstantin,

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 01:45:30PM +0300, Konstantin Aladyshev wrote:
I'm using the OpenBMC system (https://github.com/openbmc/openbmc) and
I've tried to enable AppArmor functionality from the 'meta-security'
layer.

To achieve this I've added these strings to my local.conf file:
DISTRO_FEATURES_append = " apparmor"
IMAGE_INSTALL += "apparmor"

The AppArmor functionality was installed to my image, but
unfortunately I've come to this issue:

kernel: AppArmor: AppArmor initialized
kernel: AppArmor: AppArmor Filesystem Enabled
kernel: AppArmor: AppArmor sha1 policy hashing enabled
systemd[1]: systemd 247.3+ running in system mode. (+PAM -AUDIT
-SELINUX -IMA -APPARMOR -SMACK +SYSVINIT -UTMP -LIBCRYPTSETUP -GCRYPT
-GNUTLS -ACL +XZ -LZ4 -ZSTD -SECCOMP +BLKID -ELFUTILS +KMOD -IDN2 -IDN
-PCRE2 default-hierarchy=hybrid)
systemd[1]: Starting AppArmor initialization...
apparmor[113]: Starting AppArmor profiles
apparmor[128]: xargs: invalid option -- 'd'
Busybox implementation of xargs does not support specifying a delimiter.

I suggest you to install the full-featured xargs which is provided by
the findutils recipe.

You probably need to disable xargs Busybox implementation otherwise
there'll be a conflict (you'll know, Yocto won't create the image).

Cheers,
Quentin


Bitbake build failures?

jchludzinski
 

When I trying using bitbake to build openembedded Linux kernel, it dies with these download failures:

NOTE: Fetching uninative binary shim http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/uninative/3.0/x86_64-nativesdk-libc.tar.xz;sha256sum=5ec5a9276046e7eceeac749a18b175667384e1f445cd4526300a41404d985a5b (will check PREMIRRORS first)
WARNING: Failed to fetch URL http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/uninative/3.0/x86_64-nativesdk-libc.tar.xz;sha256sum=5ec5a9276046e7eceeac749a18b175667384e1f445cd4526300a41404d985a5b, attempting MIRRORS if available
ERROR: Fetcher failure: Fetch command export PSEUDO_DISABLED=1; export DBUS_SESSION_BUS_ADDRESS="unix:path=/run/user/1000/bus"; export SSH_AUTH_SOCK="/run/user/1000/keyring/ssh"; export PATH="/home/jski/poky/scripts:/home/jski/poky/build/tmp/work/core2-64-poky-linux/defaultpkgname/1.0-r0/recipe-sysroot-native/usr/bin/x86_64-poky-linux:/home/jski/poky/build/tmp/work/core2-64-poky-linux/defaultpkgname/1.0-r0/recipe-sysroot/usr/bin/crossscripts:/home/jski/poky/build/tmp/work/core2-64-poky-linux/defaultpkgname/1.0-r0/recipe-sysroot-native/usr/sbin:/home/jski/poky/build/tmp/work/core2-64-poky-linux/defaultpkgname/1.0-r0/recipe-sysroot-native/usr/bin:/home/jski/poky/build/tmp/work/core2-64-poky-linux/defaultpkgname/1.0-r0/recipe-sysroot-native/sbin:/home/jski/poky/build/tmp/work/core2-64-poky-linux/defaultpkgname/1.0-r0/recipe-sysroot-native/bin:/home/jski/poky/bitbake/bin:/home/jski/poky/build/tmp/hosttools"; export HOME="/home/jski"; /usr/bin/env wget -t 2 -T 30 --passive-ftp --no-check-certificate -P /home/jski/poky/build/downloads/uninative/5ec5a9276046e7eceeac749a18b175667384e1f445cd4526300a41404d985a5b 'http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/uninative/3.0/x86_64-nativesdk-libc.tar.xz' --progress=dot -v failed with exit code 4, output:
--2021-04-27 01:49:09--  http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/uninative/3.0/x86_64-nativesdk-libc.tar.xz
Resolving downloads.yoctoproject.org (downloads.yoctoproject.org)... failed: Connection timed out.
wget: unable to resolve host address ‘downloads.yoctoproject.org’

WARNING: Disabling uninative as unable to fetch uninative tarball: Fetcher failure for URL: 'http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/uninative/3.0/x86_64-nativesdk-libc.tar.xz;sha256sum=5ec5a9276046e7eceeac749a18b175667384e1f445cd4526300a41404d985a5b'. Unable to fetch URL from any source.
WARNING: To build your own uninative loader, please bitbake uninative-tarball and set UNINATIVE_TARBALL appropriately.

Why do I ALWAYS get these download failures?


Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 6/7] default-distrovars.inc: add wayland/opengl to default distro features

Armin Kuster
 

On 4/27/21 9:09 AM, Randy MacLeod wrote:
Cross-posting to yocto since this is of general interest.

On 2021-04-23 2:02 p.m., Alexander Kanavin wrote:
This puts them on equal terms with x11 distro feature
(which I think is due).

Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@...>
---
  meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc | 2 +-
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
b/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
index 9fcc10f83a..384ee7fc98 100644
--- a/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
+++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ LOCALE_UTF8_ONLY ?= "0"
  LOCALE_UTF8_IS_DEFAULT ?= "1"
  LOCALE_UTF8_IS_DEFAULT_class-nativesdk = "0"
  -DISTRO_FEATURES_DEFAULT ?= "acl alsa argp bluetooth debuginfod
ext2 ipv4 ipv6 largefile pcmcia usbgadget usbhost wifi xattr nfs
zeroconf pci 3g nfc x11 vfat"
+DISTRO_FEATURES_DEFAULT ?= "acl alsa argp bluetooth debuginfod ext2
ipv4 ipv6 largefile pcmcia usbgadget usbhost wifi xattr nfs zeroconf
pci 3g nfc x11 vfat wayland opengl"
  DISTRO_FEATURES ?= "${DISTRO_FEATURES_DEFAULT}"
  IMAGE_FEATURES ?= ""
 
Randy,


We (Wind River) already drop the x11 DF from some of our distros and
we'd likely do the same for wayland and opengl so while this seems
like the wrong change for headless systems it is one we could deal with.

There was some discussion about this topic on the tech call today and
people were concerned about BSP support for opengl since the software
rendering in mesa is horridly slow.
Thanks for bring this issue up.


Kevin, Bryan,
Can you comment if you think we'd have any show-stopper problems
with opengl support for BSPs?
Err, are they going to check my BSP ; )


Joshua said that weston has a usable RDP (remote desktop backend) but
I'm not sure how usable it is especially for single application sharing.
This contrasts with x11 where you can use X11 forwarding over
ssh trivially for whole desktops or an application.

In conclusion, I see the value in pushing yocto forward but we may need
to wait for agreement from BSP folks so let's see what they say.
The layer index  BSP list is long so waiting for feedback may not be
practical.  I think it may be  more of an awareness and how can the BSP
maintainers work around the default if there are issues rather than 
stopping this progress  in core.

I personal would rather see my layer break so that I will be forced to
take action.  I see this as being  no different than when we update
u-boot or the kernel.

- armin

../Randy









Re: OpenEmbedded Happy Hour April 28 9pm/2100 UTC

Denys Dmytriyenko
 

Reminder, next Happy Hour is in one day - everyone is welcome to meet with
fellow developers and chat about any interesting topics over Zoom. BYOB -
bring your own beverage.

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 04:04:25PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
Hi,

Please join us for the upcoming OpenEmbedded Happy Hour on April 28 for
Asia/Pacific timezones @ 2100/9pm UTC (5pm EDT):

https://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Calendar
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=OpenEmbedded+Happy+Hour+April+28&iso=20210428T21
--
Regards,
Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@...>
PGP: 0x420902729A92C964 - https://denix.org/0x420902729A92C964
Fingerprint: 25FC E4A5 8A72 2F69 1186 6D76 4209 0272 9A92 C964


Re: Can layer maintainers add yocto-X.Y tags for yocto-3.3 and later?

Armin Kuster
 

On 4/27/21 9:48 AM, Randy MacLeod wrote:
Hi,


I've CCed some of the maintainers of more widely used Yocto layers
to get comments on about tagging. Please add in people who I may
have missed.


For a while now, oe-core has had a yocto-X.Y tag in addition to the
release branch name. This helps users easily find the exact commit
that corresponds to the say 3.3 GA release. There have been some
omissions in tagging but Michael and Richard are adjusting the
release process so that tagging will happen more consistently.

Most yocto layers have not adopted the tagging perhaps because they
weren't aware of it so that's why I'm writing this email. Tagging
will make it easy to find the first commit for a specific release
independent of what the branching policy of a layer is. Layer
maintainers sometimes create the release branch in advance of
when oe-core is released and by adding the tag, it would make it
clear when the layer considers content to be officially released.
So the official starting point is what you are looking for? is there any
expectation to tag for dot release alignment?

Of course it's up to users to decide if they are going to follow
the HEAD of a branch or, for some reason, stick with a tagged commit
or private branch off that commit.
What's more important, tag or branch? Many layers hosted on git.yp.org
don't have the 'hardknott' branch.  If the discipline to create a new
branch is not their, I have a hard time believing 'tagging' will be high
on their list.


Are there any concerns about attempting to do this for yocto-3.3
and later?
Tagging in Poky has a meaning of a fully QA set of sources at a given
point of time.  It may be interpreted by users that if a tag showed up
in other layers, those layers are also fully tested.



Should we make it a requirement for yocto compliance?
I think you mean 'Yocto Compatible'.  Branching is already a requirement
IIRC as the program is against a specific branch.

-armin

Should it be a feature tested by the yocto compliance script?



Here's what's in oe-core and bitbake now:
$ cd .../oe-core.git
$ git tag -l | grep yocto-3
yocto-3.0
yocto-3.1
yocto-3.1.7
yocto-3.2
yocto-3.2.1
yocto-3.3

$ cd bitbake/
$ git tag -l | grep yocto-3
yocto-3.0
yocto-3.1
yocto-3.2


Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 6/7] default-distrovars.inc: add wayland/opengl to default distro features

Alexander Kanavin
 

Wait a moment, I am not sure I understand the argument about software rendering. Can you please elaborate?

What is the scenario where enabling opengl would regress from something hw-accelerated to software rendering?

Alex


On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 at 19:09, Otavio Salvador <otavio.salvador@...> wrote:
Em ter., 27 de abr. de 2021 às 13:10, Randy MacLeod
<randy.macleod@...> escreveu:
>
> Cross-posting to yocto since this is of general interest.
>
> On 2021-04-23 2:02 p.m., Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> > This puts them on equal terms with x11 distro feature
> > (which I think is due).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@...>
> > ---
> >   meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc | 2 +-
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc b/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
> > index 9fcc10f83a..384ee7fc98 100644
> > --- a/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
> > +++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
> > @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ LOCALE_UTF8_ONLY ?= "0"
> >   LOCALE_UTF8_IS_DEFAULT ?= "1"
> >   LOCALE_UTF8_IS_DEFAULT_class-nativesdk = "0"
> >
> > -DISTRO_FEATURES_DEFAULT ?= "acl alsa argp bluetooth debuginfod ext2 ipv4 ipv6 largefile pcmcia usbgadget usbhost wifi xattr nfs zeroconf pci 3g nfc x11 vfat"
> > +DISTRO_FEATURES_DEFAULT ?= "acl alsa argp bluetooth debuginfod ext2 ipv4 ipv6 largefile pcmcia usbgadget usbhost wifi xattr nfs zeroconf pci 3g nfc x11 vfat wayland opengl"
> >   DISTRO_FEATURES ?= "${DISTRO_FEATURES_DEFAULT}"
> >   IMAGE_FEATURES ?= ""
> >
> >
>
> We (Wind River) already drop the x11 DF from some of our distros and
> we'd likely do the same for wayland and opengl so while this seems
> like the wrong change for headless systems it is one we could deal with.

Adding wayland seems Ok but forcing the opengl support doesn't seems a
good default. Especially because we just also ensure software
rendering is also wrong (slow or not).

--
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9 9981-7854          Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750


Re: Can layer maintainers add yocto-X.Y tags for yocto-3.3 and later?

Khem Raj
 

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 9:48 AM Randy MacLeod
<randy.macleod@...> wrote:

Hi,


I've CCed some of the maintainers of more widely used Yocto layers
to get comments on about tagging. Please add in people who I may
have missed.


For a while now, oe-core has had a yocto-X.Y tag in addition to the
release branch name. This helps users easily find the exact commit
that corresponds to the say 3.3 GA release. There have been some
omissions in tagging but Michael and Richard are adjusting the
release process so that tagging will happen more consistently.

Most yocto layers have not adopted the tagging perhaps because they
weren't aware of it so that's why I'm writing this email. Tagging
will make it easy to find the first commit for a specific release
independent of what the branching policy of a layer is. Layer
maintainers sometimes create the release branch in advance of
when oe-core is released and by adding the tag, it would make it
clear when the layer considers content to be officially released.
Of course it's up to users to decide if they are going to follow
the HEAD of a branch or, for some reason, stick with a tagged commit
or private branch off that commit.
I think this could be a good thing, although it does put the burden on
release maintainers. mostly they
test against the tip of the release branch, So if yocto project
testing is including these layers for wider
testing and can then recommend a validated commit then perhaps this
could be made viable.


Are there any concerns about attempting to do this for yocto-3.3
and later?

Should we make it a requirement for yocto compliance?
Should it be a feature tested by the yocto compliance script?



Here's what's in oe-core and bitbake now:
$ cd .../oe-core.git
$ git tag -l | grep yocto-3
yocto-3.0
yocto-3.1
yocto-3.1.7
yocto-3.2
yocto-3.2.1
yocto-3.3

$ cd bitbake/
$ git tag -l | grep yocto-3
yocto-3.0
yocto-3.1
yocto-3.2

--
# Randy MacLeod
# Wind River Linux


Re: Can layer maintainers add yocto-X.Y tags for yocto-3.3 and later?

Claude Bing
 

This would be a helpful addition for us when upgrading between named
Yocto releases. Normally, when we are ready to upgrade, we checkout the
HEAD for the named branch and try to get everything working together.

Having a tagged commit for a version would (hopefully) help ensure that
all of the layers are in the same state as when it went through QA
testing. If we are upgrading at some arbitrary point after the release
was made, some layers could have additional commits that may require
changes which have not yet made it into the dependent layers.

Regards,

Claude Bing

On 4/27/21 12:48 PM, Randy MacLeod wrote:
Hi,


I've CCed some of the maintainers of more widely used Yocto layers
to get comments on about tagging. Please add in people who I may
have missed.


For a while now, oe-core has had a yocto-X.Y tag in addition to the
release branch name. This helps users easily find the exact commit
that corresponds to the say 3.3 GA release. There have been some
omissions in tagging but Michael and Richard are adjusting the
release process so that tagging will happen more consistently.

Most yocto layers have not adopted the tagging perhaps because they
weren't aware of it so that's why I'm writing this email. Tagging
will make it easy to find the first commit for a specific release
independent of what the branching policy of a layer is. Layer
maintainers sometimes create the release branch in advance of
when oe-core is released and by adding the tag, it would make it
clear when the layer considers content to be officially released.
Of course it's up to users to decide if they are going to follow
the HEAD of a branch or, for some reason, stick with a tagged commit
or private branch off that commit.


Are there any concerns about attempting to do this for yocto-3.3
and later?

Should we make it a requirement for yocto compliance?
Should it be a feature tested by the yocto compliance script?



Here's what's in oe-core and bitbake now:
$ cd .../oe-core.git
$ git tag -l | grep yocto-3
yocto-3.0
yocto-3.1
yocto-3.1.7
yocto-3.2
yocto-3.2.1
yocto-3.3

$ cd bitbake/
$ git tag -l | grep yocto-3
yocto-3.0
yocto-3.1
yocto-3.2





Can layer maintainers add yocto-X.Y tags for yocto-3.3 and later?

Randy MacLeod
 

Hi,


I've CCed some of the maintainers of more widely used Yocto layers
to get comments on about tagging. Please add in people who I may
have missed.


For a while now, oe-core has had a yocto-X.Y tag in addition to the
release branch name. This helps users easily find the exact commit
that corresponds to the say 3.3 GA release. There have been some
omissions in tagging but Michael and Richard are adjusting the
release process so that tagging will happen more consistently.

Most yocto layers have not adopted the tagging perhaps because they
weren't aware of it so that's why I'm writing this email. Tagging
will make it easy to find the first commit for a specific release
independent of what the branching policy of a layer is. Layer maintainers sometimes create the release branch in advance of
when oe-core is released and by adding the tag, it would make it
clear when the layer considers content to be officially released.
Of course it's up to users to decide if they are going to follow
the HEAD of a branch or, for some reason, stick with a tagged commit
or private branch off that commit.


Are there any concerns about attempting to do this for yocto-3.3
and later?

Should we make it a requirement for yocto compliance?
Should it be a feature tested by the yocto compliance script?



Here's what's in oe-core and bitbake now:
$ cd .../oe-core.git
$ git tag -l | grep yocto-3
yocto-3.0
yocto-3.1
yocto-3.1.7
yocto-3.2
yocto-3.2.1
yocto-3.3

$ cd bitbake/
$ git tag -l | grep yocto-3
yocto-3.0
yocto-3.1
yocto-3.2

--
# Randy MacLeod
# Wind River Linux


Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 6/7] default-distrovars.inc: add wayland/opengl to default distro features

Randy MacLeod
 

Cross-posting to yocto since this is of general interest.

On 2021-04-23 2:02 p.m., Alexander Kanavin wrote:
This puts them on equal terms with x11 distro feature
(which I think is due).
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@...>
---
meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc b/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
index 9fcc10f83a..384ee7fc98 100644
--- a/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
+++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ LOCALE_UTF8_ONLY ?= "0"
LOCALE_UTF8_IS_DEFAULT ?= "1"
LOCALE_UTF8_IS_DEFAULT_class-nativesdk = "0"
-DISTRO_FEATURES_DEFAULT ?= "acl alsa argp bluetooth debuginfod ext2 ipv4 ipv6 largefile pcmcia usbgadget usbhost wifi xattr nfs zeroconf pci 3g nfc x11 vfat"
+DISTRO_FEATURES_DEFAULT ?= "acl alsa argp bluetooth debuginfod ext2 ipv4 ipv6 largefile pcmcia usbgadget usbhost wifi xattr nfs zeroconf pci 3g nfc x11 vfat wayland opengl"
DISTRO_FEATURES ?= "${DISTRO_FEATURES_DEFAULT}"
IMAGE_FEATURES ?= ""
We (Wind River) already drop the x11 DF from some of our distros and
we'd likely do the same for wayland and opengl so while this seems
like the wrong change for headless systems it is one we could deal with.

There was some discussion about this topic on the tech call today and
people were concerned about BSP support for opengl since the software
rendering in mesa is horridly slow.

Kevin, Bryan,
Can you comment if you think we'd have any show-stopper problems
with opengl support for BSPs?

Joshua said that weston has a usable RDP (remote desktop backend) but
I'm not sure how usable it is especially for single application sharing.
This contrasts with x11 where you can use X11 forwarding over
ssh trivially for whole desktops or an application.

In conclusion, I see the value in pushing yocto forward but we may need
to wait for agreement from BSP folks so let's see what they say.

../Randy



--
# Randy MacLeod
# Wind River Linux


Yocto Project Status WW17`21

Stephen Jolley
 

Current Dev Position: YP 3.4 M1

Next Deadline: 7th June 2021 YP 3.4 M1 build

 

Next Team Meetings:

 

Key Status/Updates:

  • YP 3.1.7 was released.
  • Patches are now flowing into master for 3.4 for M1 which is now undergoing active development.
  • We added automated yocto-check-layer testing to the YP autobuilder for key project layers which include meta-openembedded and meta-virtualization as well as member layers. The aim is to ensure key project layers interoperate well with each other and we’d like to thank the layer maintainers who’ve helped ensure these layers started passing tests.
  • Libseccomp has moved to OE-Core due to its widespread use and becoming a hard requirement for some software. As such its now in the default DISTRO_FEATURES.
  • There is a potentially controversial proposal to add opengl to the default DISTRO_FEATURES as part of the move to wayland rather than X11 Xserver based systems which people may wish to review carefully.
  • Elections for the two OE positions on the YP TSC are ongoing on the openembedded-members list. Please contact the OE board if you are not a member but would like to be.
  • Intermittent autobuilder issues continue to occur and are now at a record high level. You  can see the list of failures we’re continuing to see by searching for the “AB-INT” tag in bugzilla: https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=AB-INT

We are working to identify the load pattern on the infrastructure that seems to trigger these.

 

Ways to contribute:

 

YP 3.4 Milestone Dates:

  • YP 3.4 M1 build date 2021/06/07
  • YP 3.4 M1 Release date 2021/06/18
  • YP 3.4 M2 build date 2021/07/12
  • YP 3.4 M2 Release date 2021/07/23
  • YP 3.4 M3 build date 2021/08/23
  • YP 3.4 M3 Release date 2021/09/03
  • YP 3.4 M4 build date 2021/10/04
  • YP 3.4 M4 Release date 2021/10/29

 

Planned upcoming dot releases:

  • YP 3.1.7 has been released.
  • YP 3.2.4 build date 2021/05/3
  • YP 3.2.4 release date 2021/05/14
  • YP 3.3.1 build date 2021/05/17
  • YP 3.3.1 release date 2021/05/28
  • YP 3.1.8 build date 2021/05/24
  • YP 3.1.8 release date 2021/06/04
  • YP 3.1.9 build date 2021/06/21
  • YP 3.1.9 release date 2021/07/02
  • YP 3.3.2 build date 2021/07/19
  • YP 3.3.2 release date 2021/07/30
  • YP 3.1.10 build date 2021/07/26
  • YP 3.1.10 release date 2021/08/06
  • YP 3.1.11 build date 2021/09/13
  • YP 3.1.11 release date 2021/9/24

 

Tracking Metrics:

 

The Yocto Project’s technical governance is through its Technical Steering Committee, more information is available at:

https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/TSC

 

The Status reports are now stored on the wiki at: https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Weekly_Status

 

[If anyone has suggestions for other information you’d like to see on this weekly status update, let us know!]

Thanks,

 

Stephen K. Jolley

Yocto Project Program Manager

(    Cell:                (208) 244-4460

* Email:              sjolley.yp.pm@...

 


looking for a bit more info on licensing certain recipe files

Robert P. J. Day
 

for the first time, i'm digging around in the docs for how to
properly license various types of recipes, so a couple simple
questions to start with, at least so i can make a first pass of
cleaning up some content in front of me.

as we established recently, packagegroup files need no licensing,
the obvious observation being that they represent the collection of
licenses that comprise them. however, i notice that the
packagegroup.bbclass file does indeed define a default license:

LICENSE ?= "MIT"

so not only does a packagegroup have a default (MIT) license, but it's
conditional suggesting one could give it a different license. what
other licenses would make sense for a packagegroup? I'm sticking with
the default that packagegroup recipe files need no LICENSE assignment,
but now i'm curious as to what other options there are (or perhaps
that that default assignment in packagegroup.bbclass is obsolete).

the same sort of question can be asked about image files, including
the generic OE core-image*.bb recipe files. of all those current
core-image files:

core-image-base.bb
core-image-minimal.bb
core-image-minimal-dev.bb
core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
core-image-minimal-mtdutils.bb
core-image-tiny-initramfs.bb

fail into two camps.

the first sets a license, then inherits core-image:

LICENSE = "MIT"
inherit core-image

the second type simply "require"s one of the other recipe files so it
has no need to set its own license, as in core-image-minimal-dev.bb:

require core-image-minimal.bb

similar to packagegroups, does a core-image recipe really need a
separate LICENSE setting, or could that be added to core-image.bbclass
to centralize it (if it's even needed at all)?

finally, WRT .bbappend files, the original recipes will have their
own licenses and if the .bbappend file is doing nothing but adding
some configuration (you know, PACKAGECONFIG, EXTRA_OEMAKE, that sort
of thing), then there should be no need for licensing in the bbappend
file. does all this sound reasonable so far?

rday

5361 - 5380 of 58636