Re: image.bbclass vs core-image.bbclass

[Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com>]

On 2015-07-17 05:14, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> Hi Gary,
>
> On Friday 17 July 2015 04:56:43 Gary Thomas wrote:
>> Why are some ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMANDs being set in image.bbclass
>> and others in core-image.bbclass?  If I build an image using only
>> image.bbclass, I miss the settings from core-image.bbclass (which
>> is somewhat misnamed IMO since it's heavier than image.bbclass)?
>>
>> Is there some reason not to have all of the ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMANDs
>> just in image.bbclass alone?
>
> The existence of this class is kind of a legacy from when parts of Poky became
> OE-Core - originally core-image.bbclass was called poky-image.bbclass, and
> what was in it was specific to Poky. We had to bring it over though because all
> of our example images, which we need to have for verification (if nothing
> else), inherited from it and still do. We've made minor adjustments to core-
> image.bbclass since then but there are still things in there that are clearly
> "distro" type definitions that don't make sense for everyone; so far nobody has
> really stepped up to find any better common items or reasonable defaults
> (perhaps there aren't any, though I doubt that).
>
> There is a bug open assigned to me to try to sort this out, but to be honest
> I've been struggling with how to best to do it:
>
>    https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5424
>
> I'm open to any suggestions, because I do think the dichotomy between these
> classes ought to be resolved if it can be done practically.
>
> Specifically on the ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMANDs, those do look like they ought
> to somehow be in image.bbclass if they can be added in a manner that doesn't
> interfere with people's ability to create images that aren't rootfses.

It seems that many of the ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMANDs in image.bbclass already
assume that a rootfs is being built.

To me the ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMANDs that are in core-image.bbclass
don't seem any more invasive than the ones in image.bbclass.  For starters,
I'd like to see them moved to image.bbclass.  It's also quite strange that
the read-only-rootfs hook is defined in image.bbclass but only invoked
from core-image.bbclass??  [That's the one that lead me down this road]

Any objections to a patch that does that?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                 |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates              |    Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------