From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from astoria.ccjclearline.com (astoria.ccjclearline.com [64.235.106.9]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A68426AC9D for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 22:30:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [99.240.204.5] (port=48541 helo=crashcourse.ca) by astoria.ccjclearline.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X5jKg-0006HN-4q for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 18:30:22 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 18:30:19 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" X-X-Sender: rpjday@localhost To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LFD 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - astoria.ccjclearline.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.openembedded.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - crashcourse.ca X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Subject: Re: the awkwardness of using core-image.bbclass X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 22:30:22 -0000 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 11 Jul 2014, Rudolf Streif wrote: > Hi Robert, > > > > > some observations/questions on core-image.bbclass, and whether it > > can be used more understandably. this is being written from the > > perspective of someone who has had the occasional student ask, "why > > was it done *that* way?" > > > > so here's the important part of core-image.bbclass: > > > > CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL = '\ > > packagegroup-core-boot \ > > packagegroup-base-extended \ > > \ > > ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL} \ > > ' > > > > CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= "" > > > > IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL}" > > > > inherit image > > > > whose job is obviously to define the final contents in IMAGE_INSTALL > > to be handed off to image.bbclass. so far, so good. but notice first > > that while IMAGE_INSTALL and CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL are weakly > > assigned, CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL is *not*, which -- if one is > > perusing that file -- strongly suggests that if you're inheriting > > from this class file, you really should use that value. but it doesn't > > work that way. > > > > Consider CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL as a default value for IMAGE_INSTALL. > It's internal to the core-image class only. Hence, it makes sense for it to > be directly assigned. It is not meant to be used by any other classes or > recipes. With the default value the most simple recipe you can write to use > the core-image class is: > > myimage.bb: > inherit core-image > > which will produce an image that boots to the console and include > hardware support if so defined by machine and distro features. > > IMAGE_INSTALL and CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL are meant to be > overwritten by image recipes and configuration files. i know, which is exactly what is so counter-intuitive with the way the above is done. you can override those two variables, but not CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL directly, it just seems silly. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ========================================================================