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 CCD4D70313 for ; Sat, 12 Jul 2014 09:53:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [99.240.204.5] (port=52525 helo=crashcourse.ca) by astoria.ccjclearline.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X5tzy-0004Qo-M3 for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2014 05:53:42 -0400 Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 05:53:38 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" X-X-Sender: rpjday@localhost To: openembeded-devel 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: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 09:53:48 -0000 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 11 Jul 2014, Khem Raj wrote: > > 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. > > why do you want CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL to be overridable ? unless > you want to construct image of your own completely from scratch but > then why would you want to inherit properties from core-image class. one last post on this, then i'll move on -- i didn't want this to become so involved. quite simply, even if you inherit from core-image, the setting of CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL *is* overridable -- it's simply overridable in a disgusting, grotesque, non-intuitive and incomprehensible way. i'm happy to leave core-image.bbclass the way it is, and i'll admit that it works just fine as long as you recognize the crippled way it's implemented. any base class that requires horrid code like this in an inheriting class: IMAGE_INSTALL = "packagegroup-core-boot ${ROOTFS_PKGMANAGE_BOOTSTRAP} ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL}" inherit core-image to allegedly *inherit* from core-image but still mangle the allegedly really, really important value of CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL is just ... wrong. so, i'm happy to leave things the way they are, knowing that in my future OE/yocto courses, i will continue to introduce the section on core images with the lead-in, "you're not going to *believe* what they did here", after which students will, as always, be wiping their eyes from laughter. and as forrest gump once said, "and that's all i have to say about that." carry on. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ========================================================================