I'm using the latest RefKit gateway image with the IoT to Cloud Smart Home demo. Good news is: I'm able to run the IoT REST API service fine with the stock image configuration. Good work guys
It looks like there is more details about this here: https://github.com/intel/intel-iot-refkit/issues/84. Which should be used for tracking purposes?
For some reason the comment got chopped off. Here's what posted in the GitHub issue tracker for intel-iot-refkit. I'm using the latest RefKit gateway image with the IoT to Cloud Smart Home demo. Good news is: I'm able to run the IoT REST API service fine with the stock image configuration. Good work guys
I'm using the latest RefKit gateway image with the IoT to Cloud Smart Home demo. Good news is: I'm able to run the IoT REST API service fine with the stock image configuration. Good work guys! What I would like to do is run the "cloud side" docker app to access the REST API. Unfortunately the requirements to install the binary version of Docker on RefKit aren't met. According to the Docker documentation a few packages are missing in the image: https://docs.docker.com/engine/installation/binaries/#install-daemon-and-client-binaries-on-linux What do you think about generating one dev image that can be used to modify and debug code on target regardless of the RefKit profile that is being used? Such an image should contain Autotools, compiler, git, all editors for Linux and header files for all packages, etc. Yes, the image would be rather large, but installing a large image installed once still beats the task to generate image(s) for the purpose of on-target development by far :-)
Marking as closed.
(In reply to comment #4) > Marking as closed. Could you also share the verification criteria you were using when declaring this as fixed.
I can't provide verification criteria for a bug we never really worked on. Let's replace it with a better bug that defines how on-target development using RefKit can be accomplished and determine for what milestone it will be done.
(In reply to comment #6) > I can't provide verification criteria for a bug we never really worked on. > Let's replace it with a better bug that defines how on-target development > using RefKit can be accomplished and determine for what milestone it will be > done. Sounds good, please work with Jaska on this. Also couldn't we use this bug for that purpose instead of creating a new one?