dozylynx
commented
7 years ago Hi
The first commit, 6d8c429f84c49232596785e2b358e72f9bfab361, is good - though I haven't tested it, it looks like a useful cleanup and that should go in.
The second commit, c0c8da01c64b806be391db4f6c2c13f4c08b77fc probably belongs in a second PR.
I think it is a bit less polished because the layer definition isn't encapsulated in the layer description file: wiring the layer in this way entails changes in four build setup scripts and build execution scripts at both the top level and oe level. In contrast, the way the meta-intel layer is introduced doesn't work the same way, and it would be nice if it were more similar.
eg. the layer-specific string "sync-wui" should probably come from the layer definition file, rather than be hardcoded into the general build script.
Finally, and separately, I'd like to propose that the layer be named "meta-openxt-remote-management" rather than "meta-syncxt", for the following reasons:
- syncxt is not a name that can be intuitively understood by someone unfamiliar, or only loosely familiar, with our project.
- "syncxt" doesn't describe what the contents of the layer are for.
- Most importantly, it would be useful to prepare a place for other remote management tools (eg. ansible, salt, chef) to be able to be placed into this same layer and still have the layer name be correct.
jean-edouard
Signed-off-by: Jed lejosnej@ainfosec.com