From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 319A7E003FA; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 09:54:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] Received: from mail.chez-thomas.org (mail.mlbassoc.com [65.100.170.105]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD341E00342 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 09:54:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix, from userid 1998) id EE47FF811E8; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 10:54:49 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.1.114] (zeus [192.168.1.114]) by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C2F6F8119A; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 10:54:48 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <53C9515F.1040504@mlbassoc.com> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 10:54:55 -0600 From: Gary Thomas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: yocto@yoctoproject.org References: <53C94ACD.6010800@mlbassoc.com> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Extending images X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:54:55 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2014-07-18 10:49, Christopher Larson wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Gary Thomas > wrote: > > 've always used 'IMAGE_INSTALL += " xyz"' in my local.conf > to add new packages to a build. That said, I had a working > build for qemuarm (probably doesn't matter) and I added: > IMAGE_INSTALL += " strace" > This produced a completely broken image which barely came > up to a shell, lots of missing programs, etc. > > I then tried > CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL += " strace" > which produced a perfectly working build (just as previous) > with the new package added. > > I can see that the images produced are vastly different: > > * Original working build > -rw-r--r-- 1 gthomas gthomas 11719 Jul 18 09:34 core-image-sato-qemuarm-__20140718124453.rootfs.manifest > -rw-r--r-- 1 gthomas gthomas 87611203 Jul 18 09:34 core-image-sato-qemuarm-__20140718124453.rootfs.tar.bz2 > > * After 'IMAGE_INSTALL += ' > -rw-r--r-- 1 gthomas gthomas 9986 Jul 18 09:55 core-image-sato-qemuarm-__20140718155134.rootfs.manifest > -rw-r--r-- 1 gthomas gthomas 37859884 Jul 18 09:56 core-image-sato-qemuarm-__20140718155134.rootfs.tar.bz2 > > * After 'CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL += ' > -rw-r--r-- 1 gthomas gthomas 11738 Jul 18 10:05 core-image-sato-qemuarm-__20140718160108.rootfs.manifest > -rw-r--r-- 1 gthomas gthomas 87720106 Jul 18 10:05 core-image-sato-qemuarm-__20140718160108.rootfs.tar.bz2 > > What's the difference and why did the first attempt fail? > > > Most likely the image defined its own IMAGE_INSTALL using ?=, so defining it yourself in the configuration data overrode its default definition, since ?= is "set only if unset". If > the recipe didn't use ?=, then your IMAGE_INSTALL += would have had no effect at all. To append to IMAGE_INSTALL directly without using CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL you could have used > IMAGE_INSTALL_append, since that's a postponed operation that happens at the end of the recipe parsing. That makes sense, thanks. I'll stick to using CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL from now on! -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Thomas | Consulting for the MLB Associates | Embedded world ------------------------------------------------------------