core-image.bbclass: Reformat definition of CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL
PATCH 1/1 core-image.bbclass: Reformat definition of CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL
Reformat the assignment to CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL to be more intuitively obvious.
---
compile and run-time tested, building a core-image-minimal for
qemuarm.
meta/classes/core-image.bbclass +1 -3
@@ -59,13 +59,11 @@ MACHINE_HWCODECS ??= "" CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL = '\ packagegroup-core-boot \ packagegroup-base-extended \ - \ - ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL} \ ' CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= "" -IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL}" +IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL} ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL}" inherit image
Signature · 7 lines
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================Hello,
+OE-Core
Quoted 17 lines · Robert P. J. Day
Reformat the assignment to
CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALLto be more intuitively obvious.Signed-off-by Robert P. J. Day <[email protected]>---
compile and run-time tested, building a core-image-minimal for
qemuarm.meta/classes/core-image.bbclass +0
-0@@ -59,13 +59,11 @@ MACHINE_HWCODECS ??= "" CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL = '\
meta/classes/core-image.bbclass MACHINE_HWCODECS ??= "" · line 66
Quoted 10 lines
meta/classes/core-image.bbclass +1
-3packagegroup-core-boot \ packagegroup-base-extended \ - \ - ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL} \ ' CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= "" -IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL}" +IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL} ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL}"
For me, more intuitively would be:
CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL ?= ...
IMAGE_INSTALL += "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL} ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL}"
So IMAGE_INSTALL += "foo" in local.conf works as expected by new users.
Signature · 3 lines
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
Quoted 28 lines · Otavio Salvador
Hello,
+OE-Core
Quoted 23 lines · Robert P. J. Day
Reformat the assignment to
CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALLto be more intuitively obvious.Signed-off-by Robert P. J. Day <[email protected]>---
compile and run-time tested, building a core-image-minimal for
qemuarm.meta/classes/core-image.bbclass +0
-2@@ -59,13 +59,11 @@ MACHINE_HWCODECS ??= "" CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL = '\ packagegroup-core-boot \ packagegroup-base-extended \ - \ - ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL} \ '
Quoted 8 lines
meta/classes/core-image.bbclass MACHINE_HWCODECS ??= "" · line 66
Quoted 4 lines
meta/classes/core-image.bbclass +1
-1CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= "" -IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL}" +IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL} ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL}"For me, more intuitively would be:
CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL?= ...
weak assignment here would mean overridable base install which is not the intention. we want a working base image when inheriting core-image
Quoted 4 lines
IMAGE_INSTALL+= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL} ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL}"So
IMAGE_INSTALL+= "foo" in local.conf works as expected by new users.
doesnt patch has same change ?
Quoted 10 lines
--
Otavio SalvadorO.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Quoted 37 lines · Khem Raj
Quoted 35 lines · Otavio Salvador
Hello,
+OE-Core
Quoted 17 lines · Robert P. J. Day
Reformat the assignment to
CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALLto be more intuitively obvious.Signed-off-by Robert P. J. Day <[email protected]>---
compile and run-time tested, building a core-image-minimal for
qemuarm.meta/classes/core-image.bbclass +0
-0@@ -59,13 +59,11 @@ MACHINE_HWCODECS ??= "" CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL = '\meta/classes/core-image.bbclass MACHINE_HWCODECS ??= "" · line 66
Quoted 10 lines
meta/classes/core-image.bbclass +1
-3packagegroup-core-boot \ packagegroup-base-extended \ - \ - ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL} \ ' CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= "" -IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL}" +IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL} ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL}"For me, more intuitively would be:
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL?= ...weak assignment here would mean overridable base install which is not the intention. we want a working base image when inheriting core-image
except that that argument doesn't really hold water given how one
can inherit core-image, then (as i pointed out) immediately wipe out that supposedly inviolable definition of CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL by simply reassigning to IMAGE_INSTALL.
i *like* the idea of a weak assignment to CORE_IMAGE_BASE INSTALL.
it's effectively what core-image-minimal is doing anyway, it just allows you to do it in a way that's not grotesquely ugly.
rday
Signature · 7 lines
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================Quoted 10 lines · Robert P. J. Day
Quoted 7 lines · Khem Raj
Quoted 5 lines · Otavio Salvador
Hello,
+OE-Core
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Robert P. J. Day <
Quoted 4 lines · [email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Reformat the assignment to
CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALLto be more intuitively obvious.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Review
Quoted 8 lines
Signed-off-by Robert P. J. Day <[email protected]>---
compile and run-time tested, building a core-image-minimal for
qemuarm.(quoted diff) +0
-0
b/meta/classes/core-image.bbclass
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 11 lines
index 1b36cba..d2b9d69 100644
meta/classes/core-image.bbclass +0
-2@@ -59,13 +59,11 @@ MACHINE_HWCODECS ??= "" CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL = '\ packagegroup-core-boot \ packagegroup-base-extended \ - \ - ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL} \ '
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
meta/classes/core-image.bbclass MACHINE_HWCODECS ??= ""
Quoted 4 lines
meta/classes/core-image.bbclass +1
-1CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= "" -IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL}" +IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL}
${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL}"
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 4 lines
For me, more intuitively would be:
CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL?= ...
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
weak assignment here would mean overridable base install which is not the intention. we want a working base image when inheriting core-image
except that that argument doesn't really hold water given how one
can inherit core-image, then (as i pointed out) immediately wipe out that supposedly inviolable definition ofCORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALLby simply reassigning toIMAGE_INSTALL.
these classes are provided as basic working blocks. it would be a bad use case if one were to override basic constructs inside it completely. some variables are sort of interfaces some are not. besides your change is ok its just the preset is not. we should start using the constructs as intended.
Quoted 16 lines
i *like* the idea of a weak assignment to
CORE_IMAGE_BASEINSTALL.
it's effectively what core-image-minimal is doing anyway, it just allows you to do it in a way that's not grotesquely ugly.rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.caTwitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday========================================================================