From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C21477824 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 18:20:49 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=intel; t=1489515652; x=1521051652; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=BQ2fneZ5EcUl3aaKxm7CbWw2UM6zI8eyutayNU7BlVw=; b=Kv6kvh4jO2qlZFTfhXTvsmGwfhvkD6ElrD0DMfTE4xDb4HGvXUFUlAlZ RXD/aRm2S7n+GWUCd29XNRGI+UxWLg==; Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Mar 2017 11:20:49 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,165,1486454400"; d="scan'208";a="75370069" Received: from linux.intel.com ([10.54.29.200]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Mar 2017 11:20:49 -0700 Received: from linux.intel.com (vmed.fi.intel.com [10.237.72.38]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by linux.intel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 977412C8001; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:20:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 20:06:44 +0200 From: Ed Bartosh To: Patrick Ohly Message-ID: <20170314180644.GA22000@linux.intel.com> Reply-To: ed.bartosh@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> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1489513785.6396.83.camel@intel.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 18:20:50 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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. -- Regards, Ed