From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f42.google.com (mail-it0-f42.google.com [209.85.214.42]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEF1073043 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 07:24:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f42.google.com with SMTP id m27so61018354iti.0 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 00:24:40 -0700 (PDT) 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=jnDKWxyvZUzX0Sq5KAwYZi/8Tvxlc0qZDZsn7DNh/w4=; b=Zt/crspT9gOuxjXmS9gM+3gR+rqoSG4X6IDWjW0fmThRL8ExXAR3vY8xP8U2pAvBm7 paqYseSWmapDza1XoyJPzpmnBpEnIlOcF5CAATPJrPia+WoKQ2+nt5ho7ki4m1QB1sW3 jrPPEwW/YnhZz0HM+TzQvbtaEUdNXQ9KGSIDabXT2Wb0jd5+6uwgQ2UVwWhbpa4z0jO4 shpBYeJOGxQcPryBT7LdPIpllE/NxDxJliBk+FLTPA6NjKZxXgE8kQWNWpwZP2GrlX9J kVbmAPjHNK54zAJwsjewno3F3j0lNlFfyKOKe7fvwzSGsGQ/zc5qyBm4T8L8bwuHBHPx IMbg== 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=jnDKWxyvZUzX0Sq5KAwYZi/8Tvxlc0qZDZsn7DNh/w4=; b=Iu7sdZqOoVK4uNA2CVdYORcv0NnuAQFKf94im+/xv2jWsCKk/JTFsjONkKosNbIWa4 ZbFvlnqJjBoewzu6ew884+dvmQKVGByko/WzrDPBeOlY8RDShBTqne9roz6oFWmlknGb BiyUznYU8rVlYb5zHX4rpE/HLqMmEplLd3ePFhHGfu1ApaL9WkVO3RJe0oleTkgHQnFP un/0DG1kd7mSLQtoGimsj+YCh3DrW2JtJ42jj/s4I83li7jW61B7xAeH1BsMfh8rQ4xG f3xq8wKEsvOiCj4ubjRzx5CvlWLEkDoIrHJW8MhKo3QYjYbsynbByeIdRHQCYwLUZp5n SWFg== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2E5PwsK53BS2IKDb2P9BjOuQ/CPYozaSAmhhWQU8oiiiucTAA/858c0alV+0Gz5mgZ X-Received: by 10.36.91.67 with SMTP id g64mr3804884itb.20.1489562679506; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 00:24:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8DCEB.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.220.235]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w75sm1163353itc.21.2017.03.15.00.24.37 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 15 Mar 2017 00:24:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1489562674.6396.89.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: ed.bartosh@linux.intel.com Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:24:34 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20170314180644.GA22000@linux.intel.com> References: <2791e915-9e22-a01a-ccb5-c629d250edb2@phytec.de> <20170308105729.GA22401@linux.intel.com> <7d4a770f-25c6-5747-5a5c-370c822f2efb@mlbassoc.com> <20170308134349.GA16099@linux.intel.com> <20170314171147.GA28498@linux.intel.com> <1489513785.6396.83.camel@intel.com> <20170314180644.GA22000@linux.intel.com> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Gary Thomas , openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: Create more than one image with WIC 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: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 07:24:39 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2017-03-14 at 20:06 +0200, Ed Bartosh wrote: > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 06:49:45PM +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > > > > It's not a big deal to run wic sequentially to produce multiple images, > > > but it will create more problems than it solves I believe. It will be slower and > > > will make a mess in image naming in deploy directory. > > > > I personally would prefer to support generating more than one wic image > > per image recipe. The different output files could be distinguished with > > an additional suffix (".efi.wic", ".live.wiC", etc.) where the suffix is > > either specified by the WKS file or the configuration where the WKS file > > is selected - the latter might be a bit more flexible. > > > > From my point of view ths would be against the current design of oe > image building susbsystem. It would be also more complex and slower > unless we'll find a way to dynamically generate multiple image creation > tasks per one recipe and run them in parallel. In this case it will be > even more complex. That's a good point. However, directly sharing the content of the build directory from different recipes is also against the OE design and requires special attention, for example to suppressing the do_rootfs task in one recipe and preventing do_rm_work in the other. Either way, something that works out of the box might be useful. -- 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.