From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f49.google.com (mail-it0-f49.google.com [209.85.214.49]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11434719E2 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:05:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f49.google.com with SMTP id r185so54484477ita.0 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:05:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gqIEblhowONYIo+W9UQ6iRqh2mc4Ydvs8HJWtJUW928=; b=GrfnsAmA+GPhdLpgrwcf2q8Nrkj2i/EXCTsdZ0HkpRICEOnqaRJkl+mjYFuQuuYLwf HkwsjL2JldaOcr+b+X0sISj7sGNnPfJ5nJvOp++XFi2SKQ3d5fQMg8rCbUkVkOlhBDwH 8jZRBfg+Cwa5URcwovuQbsBDz4N9H8XvMRV3GscZUECp3flNwgJ2XuwgptfT1WDyMGTQ EBYZ1m76VDUJ5Gj/S3SoUVUCaLnZ++I8gPjf7US9tnnk2CvC+bBgBIYHqrN5R9CyNEpm 4cjV1Qrgn72cxbkyECQZEybdIS40Dt9SFNDvmIe8pzg3cpydzeZVrBltNVYO991pddJc G0Hw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gqIEblhowONYIo+W9UQ6iRqh2mc4Ydvs8HJWtJUW928=; b=gzcCFESpKHMRZOO5znmWfSLaN7dvrCjHdQmyKlZLZuMTo8Zvk1VBrhtsKiWYvI+664 PEiIMygoSG0HeT/ukJrqEMBZXhdzTk9R7kzQCsI8xgiyAZR4YZirAzSgKtZYU32VKNSS tI1a1hfddX/o/u6LyQhMZh9vbyV801z2XjKHHFOh6r+enAknHvKgD7f1Icmv2CpnvCnd eV6tOfrvov7Tt6vgLaRpqpd4PYZlvZ1EiggBcVorp6DjPY7RUmCqDM77sh0z1h8iFW16 E1uWAJKJamEQ2XRtwjnCIasEbcdXunuuAPYtHPLlB6i1PVz5y3HZxTq+++FWalwNCKNN wqgg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJGwxiKXvpDRSlYvt9CKOxzAp6AHD2l99/Xn6C7RaimP9/EygBvFiEHM7u/seZLwIMz X-Received: by 10.36.64.198 with SMTP id n189mr2790259ita.6.1485518757662; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:05:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8DB2E.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.219.46]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d143sm3161256iod.18.2017.01.27.04.05.55 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:05:56 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1485518753.20333.105.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Kristian Amlie Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:05:53 +0100 In-Reply-To: <4f3ba191-aa55-8cb6-6d4c-fbfd0c451ecf@mender.io> References: <4f3ba191-aa55-8cb6-6d4c-fbfd0c451ecf@mender.io> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: OE-core Subject: Re: sysroots, wic-tools and rm_work X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:05:59 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 16:39 +0100, Kristian Amlie wrote: > It seems like wic doesn't work together with rm_work, because of its > dependency on wic-tools. The reason is that building wic-tools will > result in rm_work removing the very sysroot that wic needs. > > It's easy to fix locally by adding > > RM_WORK_EXCLUDE = "wic-tools" > > however, I think this deserves a more permanent fix, and I'm not sure > which approach is best. wic-tools.bb can have: RM_WORK_EXCLUDE += "${PN}" -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.