Bug 5424

Summary:	Rationalise core-image.bbclass and image.bbclass
Product:	[Build System, Metadata & Runtime] OE-Core	Reporter:	Paul Eggleton <bluelightning>
Component:	core	Assignee:	Paul Eggleton <bluelightning>
Status:	RESOLVED INVALID	QA Contact:
Severity:	enhancement
Priority:	Low	CC:	meta.mr.watcher, meta.watcher, sgw, srifenbark
Version:	1.6
Target Milestone:	Future
Hardware:	All
OS:	Multiple
Whiteboard:
OS type for building Yocto:	---	Type of Regression:	---
Verified:		Documentation change:	Yes (doc changes required)

Description Paul Eggleton 2013-10-30 16:08:27 UTC

We have a slightly arbitrary split between what's in core-image.bbclass and what's in image.bbclass - this historically derives from the old Poky structure which OE-Core inherited. We need to look at whether it's appropriate to move any of these items to image.bbclass (we should certainly move PACKAGE_GROUP_package-management and then package-management can be dropped from IMAGE_FEATURES[validitems] there also).

Comment 1 Paul Eggleton 2014-03-06 16:48:24 UTC

I've sent a patch to at least move package-management over to image.bbclass; the rest will need to wait until 1.7.

Comment 2 Paul Eggleton 2014-03-07 17:06:09 UTC

Aforementioned package-management change now merged for 1.6:

http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/?id=874ab5a568ddbd5b140915c1330e6513e9892666

Comment 3 Scott Rifenbark 2015-06-01 22:21:26 UTC

Paul, 

I have a section http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/1.9/dev-manual/dev-manual.html#remove-package-management-requirements that mentions package-management.  I think we are technically okay here as we are telling the user to be sure that package-management is not in their IMAGE_FEATURES statement.  It looks like the result of your patch here removed package-management from that statement.  Are we okay with the "Remove Package Management Requirements" section as it is?

Aside from this point, I don't know of any other potential changes to the docs for this bug once it is fixed.  If there are, can you tell me?

Thanks, 
Scott

Comment 4 Paul Eggleton 2015-06-18 11:59:24 UTC

It's too early to be sure of what documentation changes are needed. To be honest I think we have more pressing things to do so I'm going to mark this as Future for now.

Comment 5 Stephen K Jolley 2017-09-21 15:21:38 UTC

Still a valid issue.

Comment 6 Paul Eggleton 2018-04-18 15:56:23 UTC

Looking at this again, it's not clear that we would move anything else from core-image to image, though we probably ought to evaluate what's in core-image to see if it still makes good sense. However we should open up a new bug when we have a bit more of a concrete idea of what we want to do.

Comment 7 Paul Eggleton 2018-04-18 15:56:55 UTC