Re: [meta-ti][master/kirkstone][PATCH] conf: change from do_image_wic/tar to do_image

[Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org>]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 01:24:29PM -0600, Ryan Eatmon wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/12/2022 12:15, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> >On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 01:02:40PM -0600, Ryan Eatmon via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
> >>When trying to support OpenBMC we found that our use of do_image_wic
> >>and do_image_tar for adding depends and mcdepends was too limiting.
> >>Moving to do_image is a higher level in the tree that means for any
> >>image type the dependencies will be correct.
> >
> >There might be some unexpected side effects, since do_image is too broard. Not
> >every image has a boot partition and should depend on the corresponding boot
> >files being deployed. Things like ramdisks, initramfs and such have different
> >flows and own dependencies. Also images that include other images, like guests
> >for VMs or hypervisors or even bootstrapping. All those could potentially have
> >issues due to a global do_image dependency - I've seen circular dependency
> >breakages in the past in those areas. Not all use cases are being tested by
> >default, so not easy to tell if this change is compltetely harmless...
> 
> I was worried something like that might be true.  But how are we
> supposed to know which images (present and future) that we need to
> add dependencies for in this case?

Yeah, that's a very good question. My thinking back then was that usually we 
only want "wic" format for a bootable whole-system images, hence I limited 
the dependency to do_image_wic (and the tar version was a by-product). Maybe 
your change is not as dangerous as I was imagining :) - definitely needs more 
thorough testing. Or we can come up with a completely different way of 
specifying those dependencies?

-- 
Denys