Openembedded Core Discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>
To: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
	<openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/6] local.conf.sample: make debug-tweaks depend on IMAGE_MODE
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 08:26:27 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1494915987.1179.277.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMKF1so9iLoMCs7Z0JtO9FEsg-bGpUUUrUH+FZP7YH+PHBs1qA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, 2017-05-15 at 13:25 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com> wrote:
> > The production image recipe "foobar-image-production.bb" can use
> > IMAGE_MODE_forcevariable = "production"
> > and the development image recipe "foobar-image-development.bb" can use
> > IMAGE_MODE_forcevariable = "development".

I'll probably automate the creation of these extra image variants via
BBCLASSEXTEND in an utility class. This seems to be of general
usefulness: base image with default IMAGE_MODE, one variant per valid
IMAGE_MODE where that mode is selected explicitly.

> > Then whatever the user might configure in local.conf is ignored in favor
> > of the fixed recipe values. If there's a concern about using
> > _forcevariable: that could be addressed by configuring a global
> > IMAGE_MODE_DEFAULT ??= "" and an IMAGE_MODE ??= "${IMAGE_MODE_DEFAULT}"
> > in image-mode.bbclass and changing IMAGE_MODE_DEFAULT in distro or local
> > conf. Then individual recipes can set IMAGE_MODE =
> > "development/production" without having to fall back to _forcevariable.
> >
> > Or do you mean that there's just one image .bb and traditionally
> > IMAGE_FEATURES were changed to switch back and forth? The same works
> > with IMAGE_MODE. The advantage over enabling or disabling dangerous
> > IMAGE_FEATURES is that users of a distro don't need to know about them.
> > They get the guarantee that (for a responsible distro) the dangerous
> > once will not get enabled by default for IMAGE_MODE=development.
> >
> 
> IMAGE_MODE is a distro settings not image setting is that correct ?

No, it is per-image. The code that checks the variable always runs in
individual image recipes.

-- 
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.





  reply	other threads:[~2017-05-16  6:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-05-15 13:26 [RFC][PATCH 0/6] development vs. production builds Patrick Ohly
2017-05-15 13:26 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/6] build-mode.bbclass: distro-wide debug-build mode Patrick Ohly
2017-05-15 13:26 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/6] basefiles: warn about non-production DISTRO_FEATURES in motd Patrick Ohly
2017-05-15 13:27 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/6] defaultsetup.conf: enable special "debug-build" DISTRO_FEATURES support Patrick Ohly
2017-05-15 13:27 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/6] image-mode.bbclass: per-image production/development/debug mode Patrick Ohly
2017-05-15 13:27 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/6] image.bbclass: include IMAGE_MODE support Patrick Ohly
2017-05-15 13:27 ` [RFC][PATCH 6/6] local.conf.sample: make debug-tweaks depend on IMAGE_MODE Patrick Ohly
2017-05-15 15:50   ` Khem Raj
2017-05-15 19:18     ` Patrick Ohly
2017-05-15 19:34       ` Khem Raj
2017-05-15 19:47         ` Patrick Ohly
2017-05-15 20:25           ` Khem Raj
2017-05-16  6:26             ` Patrick Ohly [this message]
2017-05-16  7:12   ` Patrick Ohly
2017-05-16  7:29 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/6] development vs. production builds Richard Purdie
2017-05-16  8:17   ` Patrick Ohly
2017-05-17  7:58     ` [PATCH v2 0/1] " Patrick Ohly
2017-05-17  7:58       ` [PATCH v2 1/1] image-mode.bbclass: common infrastructure for choosing image defaults Patrick Ohly
2017-05-17  8:38         ` Patrick Ohly
2017-05-17  9:49         ` Alexander Kanavin
2017-05-17 10:47           ` Patrick Ohly
2017-05-17 12:56             ` Alexander Kanavin
2017-05-17 13:39               ` Patrick Ohly
2017-05-17 14:17                 ` Alexander Kanavin
2017-05-16  7:35 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/6] development vs. production builds Mike Looijmans
2017-05-16  8:21   ` Patrick Ohly
2017-05-16 11:49     ` Alexander Kanavin
2017-05-16 13:47       ` Patrick Ohly
2017-05-16 14:02         ` Alexander Kanavin
2017-05-16 14:25           ` Patrick Ohly
2017-05-16 16:27             ` Alexander Kanavin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1494915987.1179.277.camel@intel.com \
    --to=patrick.ohly@intel.com \
    --cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
    --cc=raj.khem@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox