a bit of pedantry about core images

a bit of pedantry about core images

[Robert P. J. Day]

  documenting some stuff about core images and a few quick questions.
first, in core-image.bbclass:

# By default we install packagegroup-core-boot and packagegroup-base packages - this gives us
# working (console only) rootfs.

  actually, not quite true:

CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL = '\
    packagegroup-core-boot \
    packagegroup-base-extended \        <------

so that comment just needs to be fixed, i can take care of that.

  next, i've always cringed at this bit of code:

  CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL = '\
    packagegroup-core-boot \
    packagegroup-base-extended \
    \
    ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL} \
    '

  CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= ""

  IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL}"

could that not just be written as:

  CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= ""

  CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL = '\
    packagegroup-core-boot \
    packagegroup-base-extended \
    '

  IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL}" ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL}

which strikes me as much clearer. are those two snippets of code
equivalent?

  i think that's it.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: a bit of pedantry about core images

[Rudolf Streif]

Hi Robert,


>   documenting some stuff about core images and a few quick questions.
> first, in core-image.bbclass:
>
> # By default we install packagegroup-core-boot and packagegroup-base
> packages - this gives us
> # working (console only) rootfs.
>
>   actually, not quite true:
>
> CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL = '\
>     packagegroup-core-boot \
>     packagegroup-base-extended \        <------
>
> so that comment just needs to be fixed, i can take care of that.
>
> Kind of. You can look at it either way. packagegroup-base.bb defines a
whole bunch of package groups that depend on each other.
packagegroup-base-extended depends on all of them hence adding it to an
image will add all of them.


>   next, i've always cringed at this bit of code:
>
>   CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL = '\
>     packagegroup-core-boot \
>     packagegroup-base-extended \
>     \
>     ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL} \
>     '
>
>   CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= ""
>
>   IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL}"
>
> could that not just be written as:
>
>   CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= ""
>
>   CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL = '\
>     packagegroup-core-boot \
>     packagegroup-base-extended \
>     '
>
>   IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL}" ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL}
>
> Yes, I agree, that is much cleaner but you have to place the quotes
correctly.

Cheers,
:rjs

Re: a bit of pedantry about core images

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2014, Rudolf Streif wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
>
> >   documenting some stuff about core images and a few quick questions.
> > first, in core-image.bbclass:
> >
> > # By default we install packagegroup-core-boot and packagegroup-base
> > packages - this gives us
> > # working (console only) rootfs.
> >
> >   actualliy, not quite true:
> >
> > CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL = '\
> >     packagegroup-core-boot \
> >     packagegroup-base-extended \        <------
> >
> > so that comment just needs to be fixed, i can take care of that.
> >

> Kind of. You can look at it either way. packagegroup-base.bb defines
> a whole bunch of package groups that depend on each other.
> packagegroup-base-extended depends on all of them hence adding it to
> an image will add all of them.

  um ... ok, i'll check that, thanks.

> >   next, i've always cringed at this bit of code:
> >
> >   CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL = '\
> >     packagegroup-core-boot \
> >     packagegroup-base-extended \
> >     \
> >     ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL} \
> >     '
> >
> >   CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= ""
> >
> >   IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL}"
> >
> > could that not just be written as:
> >
> >   CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= ""
> >
> >   CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL = '\
> >     packagegroup-core-boot \
> >     packagegroup-base-extended \
> >     '
> >
> >   IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL}" ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL}
> >
> > Yes, I agree, that is much cleaner but you have to place the quotes
> correctly.

  i realized what i had done the instant i hit "SEND". so ...

IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "\
      ${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL} \
      ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL} \
      "

does that look right? any objections?

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: a bit of pedantry about core images

[Rudolf Streif]

>
>
>   i realized what i had done the instant i hit "SEND". so ...
>
> IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "\
>       ${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL} \
>       ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL} \
>       "
>
> does that look right? any objections?
>
> Looks good to me.

> IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL}" ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL}

Need to fix that one too:

IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL} ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL}"


Do it and test it. Submit a patch. I am not the maintainer though.

Cheers,
:rjs