9596 2016-05-05 20:09:45 +0000 Build "minimal" extensible SDK installers instead of "full" ones 2017-09-06 23:26:47 +0000 1 1 5 Infrastructure AutoBuilder autobuilder 2.1 x86 Multiple RESOLVED FIXED Medium+ enhancement 2.3 M3 9727 10794 1 henry.bruce joshuagloe bluelightning elizabeth.flanagan infras.ab.watcher Infras.watcher jose.perez.carranza joshuagloe mhalstead randy.e.witt richard.purdie francisco.j.pedraza.gonzalez --- --- Don't know oldest_to_newest 61995 0 henry.bruce 2016-05-05 20:09:45 +0000 Currently "full" eSDk installers are built as can be found at http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/yocto/yocto-2.1/toolchain/x86_64/ These installers do not allow the "extensible" part of eSDK to be exercised so we should build "minimal" installers instead (i.e. SDK_EXT_TYPE = "minimal"). This means we also need to publish matching sstate. 62145 1 richard.purdie 2016-05-12 14:35:43 +0000 I'm conscious that if we do this, we need to reference the autobuilder sstate feed to make the eSDK useful. It has implications for the automated QA of the eSDK too. Paul/Randy: Do we want to do this? Or do we need to build both? Interested in your feedback on what priority this should be. 62156 2 randy.e.witt 2016-05-12 17:17:40 +0000 Jessica was actually talking to me about this yesterday. Since we do have the esdk container now it makes sense to have "something" published, which we do have and I wasn't even aware of that. I would really like to see the minimal ones published as well. It's a much better user experience from the initial go. And we would also install the packagedata. But as you said, this requires adding a usable "stable" sstate feed that won't 403/404 if lots of users try to use it at the same time. Building both would be great, but I would want to ask Michael about infrastructure impacts beforehand. 66227 3 joshuagloe 2016-09-15 20:03:14 +0000 Moving to same milestone and owner as the Depends on: 9727 66274 4 henry.bruce 2016-09-17 01:22:28 +0000 Please don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Let's get an esdk installer that uses the yoctoproject.org sstate mirror in place and then handle demands on infrastructure resources. If developers cannot quickly assess the benefits of a correctly configured esdk installer, then they will not transition away from the traditional sdk and our investment in esdk will not see the rewards it deserves. 68483 5 joshuagloe 2016-11-22 13:33:22 +0000 This is just a case of setting SDK_EXT_TYPE[1], as Henry indicated, and ensuring the SDK's built by the autobuilder are pointed at the sstate mirrors in #9727. 1. http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/2.2/ref-manual/ref-manual.html#var-SDK_EXT_TYPE 68532 6 joshuagloe 2016-11-23 12:33:45 +0000 I need to work with Paul to figure out the correct mechanism to set an SSTATE_MIRRORS variable for use by the eSDK that won't force the variable to be used during the build. 68555 7 joshuagloe 2016-11-23 21:06:19 +0000 We can create an sdk-extra.conf file with the variables we only want to be set in the SDK, i.e. SSTATE_MIRRORS 68582 8 joshuagloe 2016-11-24 17:36:08 +0000 I have a patch in testing now. 68863 9 joshuagloe 2016-12-06 16:32:33 +0000 http://git.yoctoproject.org/clean/cgit.cgi/yocto-autobuilder/commit/?id=b506db39c6f8991895f1f121f0e109a862a1e47e 69056 10 joshuagloe 2016-12-12 21:35:41 +0000 Re-opening. The minimal eSDK results in sanity test failures. The tests need updating to install required components. Until those updates are made, some time after M1, we need to disable the minimal eSDK generation on the autobuilder. 69059 11 henry.bruce 2016-12-12 21:46:10 +0000 Can you share the URL of the eSDK install so I can also test? 69076 12 joshuagloe 2016-12-13 10:42:12 +0000 (In reply to comment #11) > Can you share the URL of the eSDK install so I can also test? Sure: http://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/pub/nightly/20161211-1/toolchain/x86_64/ This is a transient URL, so don't be surprised if/when it disappears. The minimal eSDK installers are significantly smaller (i.e. ~25M vs ~2.8G for poky-glibc-x86_64-core-image-sato-core2-64-toolchain-ext-2.2.sh) but don't include a toolchain, we have a change queued to enable inclusion of the toolchain when we re-enable minimal eSDK installers: http://git.yoctoproject.org/clean/cgit.cgi/yocto-autobuilder/commit/?id=0d2ff70f0747ffb7fb9e006cb2ad41fd6cc5390c 70173 13 joshuagloe 2017-01-26 11:35:55 +0000 Dependency bugs haven't been resolved and M2 rc1 has been built, moving this to M3. 70314 14 francisco.j.pedraza.gonzalez 2017-02-01 02:14:42 +0000 (In reply to comment #13) > Dependency bugs haven't been resolved and M2 rc1 has been built, moving this > to M3. Hi Joshua. The fix was already commited: http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/?id=aca3afcb592ef4ff070760ab2aafba03152a57fb also https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10794 is marked as resolved now. Regards 70813 15 joshuagloe 2017-02-17 15:52:40 +0000 We're all ready to go on this, we just need to be able to detect the change in selftest behaviour that enabled using it with a minimal eSDK. I've proposed a layer version bump for that https://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/137291/ Once that's merged I can push the patch for yocto-autobuilder and we can start building minimal eSDK. 70910 16 joshuagloe 2017-02-23 16:07:43 +0000 Relevant changes have landed: http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/?id=e436a6398684d2872cb541f1cfb0f67b3618d15a http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/yocto-autobuilder/commit/?id=9aae4a1b0a5d1c0a8119767d1cef9d423c83511e and the AB is updated. 76595 17 henry.bruce 2017-09-06 23:26:47 +0000 I just took a look at http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/yocto/yocto-2.3.1/toolchain/x86_64/ and don't see any minimal eSDK installers. Unless minimal install size is now over 200MB.