From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 23:31:54 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 01/15] fs: add genimage infra In-Reply-To: <87a8kwio80.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> References: <1460577820-32164-1-git-send-email-ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar> <1460577820-32164-2-git-send-email-ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar> <570EBAE6.1080000@mind.be> <20160413234135.6bf26795@free-electrons.com> <87a8kwio80.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <57100C4A.90903@mind.be> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 04/14/16 10:33, Peter Korsgaard wrote: >>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni writes: > > Hi, > >>> # Make sure the genimage dependencies appear in graph-depends > >> show-targets: > >> @echo $(ROOTFS_GENIMAGE_DEPENDENCIES) > > > But then is it really something that belongs to fs/ ? It really isn't a > > filesystem. > > No, it is closer to the post-image script. Where do you suggest to move > it? system/? > > > >> However, I'm afraid that we're moving a bit too fast after all. There are > >> several open issues still: > >> > >> - Do post-image scripts come before or after genimage? > >> - What with the dosfstools/mtools dependency? > >> - Should we support genimage.cfg files that are generated from a post-image script? > >> - Should we support several genimage.cfg files, producing several images (e.g. a > >> NAND and a SD image)? > >> > >> So, the current approach works well for the bundled defconfigs, but for real > >> use cases I think it's a bit too limited to be practical after all. > > > Do we need to support all real use cases? I think we should support the > > common use cases, and the more complicated use cases can be handled via > > a special post-image script. That's really the general philosophy of > > Buildroot IMO: handle the most common cases nicely, and leave enough > > extension scripts/hooks to allow people to plug their scripts to handle > > the more complicated/specific cases. > > Agreed, but it is good to think about the questions Arnout listed to > think about what is really the common use case. > > The definition of the post-image script was to run something at the very > end, so I think we should do genimage before post-image (even though I > could imagine use cases for the opposite as well). Yes, so eventually we'll have a post-rootfs script... > > For the dosfstools/mtools dependencies I think a simple sub option > pulling them in is most sensible. > > Supporting multiple genimage.cfg files (like we do for device_tables / > post-build / post-image, ..) IMHO makes sense and looks simple to do. Well, compared to the really simple solution that Ezequiel has now, I think the code will look quite a bit more complicated when there are multiple genimage.cfg files. Oh, and one more question: should we somehow make sure that the images generated by the different scripts don't have the same name? Regards, Arnout -- Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF