Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id CF281E00D2E; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 07:46:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no * trust * [212.227.17.10 listed in list.dnswl.org] X-Greylist: delayed 454 seconds by postgrey-1.32 at yocto-www; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 07:46:58 PDT Received: from mout.kundenserver.de (mout.kundenserver.de [212.227.17.10]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA07E00C1A for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 07:46:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from LNSYSCH3 ([81.130.69.98]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue102 [212.227.15.179]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MV4iD-1e5JXF0xll-00YQay for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 16:34:20 +0200 From: To: Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:34:19 +0100 Organization: LN Systems Limited Message-ID: <037a01d3169c$bf3c0f90$3db42eb0$@ln-systems.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdMWm4aAwsOl6PQASCabhMR7Beknjw== X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:ByS7wOiJ3AV6I+NA3jOUvZyCx3X4mXO/D0ZYFhGARUmtfRj4B6e cV4TvZ/vJ/lC3JSCyB+HRUbAP4mz3KDi6LPfXaARfp8W2BgmZYAcHFzW3MxXMG+K1yQHSLd C7Yy3L6jRwNRvvqu/la//ZNquCGZwpgUmskuFEFBC1oGgQ3SgBAG2+IC5SeZU1GfpFzdAF0 gBoscfI7PzEZrQ98t9iCQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:BCgh3T/v9DM=:ZSw0+qkbHMEzMbP9qqhfsK /ZasI7gYiiP79DAOVKq4hIJdvSAvbBKWiVHwjMqu7SLjdhLIjI1d5Yg5rSV/rGSC+gEM51lJ/ yqDg6GR6bEiNfZFmU07YwWgCU7vSvHnJEJi7/F1r1fzqVLiaCx5DKAlwCI0ynLFPUIA65A9v1 KrVtl6bvdQFFF0uA1xBYvoNKhGK9d6jpEaGDAe7fEGOu1UctJrQaX1yUz/c4SVAB9Ox09fNLX Tt4QxP7wxJuW0VNi3HBO0swr4Rw+Rf9xzjbPvYCRmFI0dSIoBxWbM3iTJNH3XDFSycorFAcuO CSwjSOU4oiHNM3JDtStF+BuQ+Ez7RqN7xkGiW9yU2l/BnE01og9HE+/42iNMXL3qUS1iuJ+Bt 5t4AOzXeh0dgZ9plvjTT2T7OnqRtX1s8NlU6kFzNDrspvEdW0tR5FYhwLgokkw+F+e0QC6bQh Q8NGYYT+vANF8j9ICe71Ej4O/P3fJNbMyvs+256uHHugl1dSfEWryf/e9eUkdqTEQbKI0YDWF GElOt9BptrgHF3tDBaxrDowdqqI7byckvkD83AWoxK7I0ufYZ4r4r9t9Ik+i8hMMNSFIDNZYy DZh3wuvg/U1HRaCrgERtE3y+KejwBblsFV0IgR8X7QKzIncw6b7r1RWy8Yk8tpFCKQ42LmP8T /LwRt6w+R8MO+TLnOiKPm5tRIPc3BdubTIqXVSFCCPTRDtf6B63SCmCAucBj4LPCCxsAsyZeC Fmy9Jh/lTzstJpLwiRCdvE45VAgMksitnvFyG0FgGV36PmXulPagUaTngFU= Subject: Building multiple U-Boot configurations X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list Reply-To: colin.helliwell@ln-systems.com List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 14:46:59 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-gb Just wondering if there's a clean n simple way to modify machine/recipe configs such that I can build two versions of U-Boot - one for development, one for production. Obviously I'll need to watch out for which one is 'deployed', but unsure of a nice way to get two built - separate recipes which pull in the different configs/patches? Any gotchas I'd need to be aware of when it comes to the interaction with the rest of the image generation; or would it just be safer to take the approach of having separate images? (That wouldn't be so usable, since it'll only be u-boot that's different between the two - I'd prefer to get both generated from a single bitbake)