Note that using grub-efi on aarch64 is expected and normal, building "grub" is not. I think the core-image-minimal-initramfs recipes and/or initramfs-module-install recipes need a bit of tweaking.

#grub

Did some sort of "enable environment support in SPL" option get enabled in your patches perhaps?

Off-hand, I suspect it might be a little tricky to use binman outside of the U-Boot context directly. Simon, any thoughts?

A wic image is just another way of saying it's a raw disk image. Decompress it, losetup -P (generally useful, but not needed this time) and dd out the contents you want.

It's an etiquette thing. Subject+Sign-off+Empty body is bad form. AUH updates are a form of "trivial update" that every project has. "Update $X from version $Y to $Z" is what a human would normally pu

Note that I'm not talking about a hook, I'm talking about what's part of my CI process. And when something pops up there is when I grab the patch in question and push back on the submitter.

FWIW, over in U-Boot land I do: ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -q --git origin/master.. as part of checking things prior to pushing to master.

But since that's just filling in a template the body can also be a template perhaps with useful AUH data (run at ... by ... ?) ?

Can you point me at a test that just does a 'bitbake -g' or similar check-don't-build type test and I'll go off and add this to my series that adds packagegroup-core-base-utils? Thanks!

Reviewed-by: Tom Rini <trini@...>

Moving the vim recipe (which doesn't have further depends) over and then putting VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_vim and ?= "vim-tiny" in this packagegroup should be flexible enough, yes?

My current incomplete list is: bind-utils \ bridge-utils \ coreutils \ dnsmasq \ e2fsprogs \ e2fsprogs-resize2fs \ e2fsprogs-tune2fs \ findutils \ gawk \ grep \ inetutils-ping \ inetutils-ping6 \ inet

What to suggest in the busybox-replacement group is a bit of a challenge as to how far you want to really push things, yes. The use case for not having busybox installed is something like the project

I'll keep that in mind perhaps if/when I cycle over back over to this. A packagegroup that says to use busybox isn't what comes to mind when I want to not have busybox on my image, and so failed out i

Correct, you're missing a lot of stuff. Somewhere on my (and other folks too) TODO list is a packagegroup that includes procps and psmisc and grep and tar and various network packages and less and mor

Yes, I think including a comment about making it clear initramfs' still need busybox should be enough of a crumb to help users out. As a separate thread maybe we should talk about dumping initramfs' f

OK, so I've kicked things a bit harder again, and here's what I see as the (small) rub. $ git grep hddimg meta/conf/ meta/conf/machine/include/x86-base.inc:IMAGE_FSTYPES ?= "hddimg" So yes, we can do

I'm not sure we can blacklist busybox from the build at this time (hddimg requires initramfs that requires busybox) but instead only force remove it from the image and ensure it still builds.

You're missing a few more things, yes. What I have is: # Switch to systemd DISTRO_FEATURES += "systemd" VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_init_manager = "systemd" VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_initscripts = "" VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_syslog

The same comments about not using "disable-" and making it a positive option instead apply here as well (and any other layer as well), thanks!