From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF7896FFD8 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 09:17:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Jul 2017 02:17:56 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,302,1496127600"; d="scan'208";a="1167501077" Received: from linux.intel.com ([10.54.29.200]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2017 02:17:56 -0700 Received: from linux.intel.com (vmed.fi.intel.com [10.237.72.38]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by linux.intel.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE97958056B; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 02:17:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 12:06:06 +0300 From: Ed Bartosh To: Alejandro Hernandez Message-ID: <20170703090606.GB5571@linux.intel.com> Reply-To: ed.bartosh@linux.intel.com References: <20170630175330.33908-1-alejandro.hernandez@linux.intel.com> <1498848221.5259.13.camel@intel.com> <1498921790.5259.34.camel@intel.com> <6aef97ed-8284-039a-c780-c5b01ee8fe1a@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6aef97ed-8284-039a-c780-c5b01ee8fe1a@linux.intel.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] bootimg-efi.py: Use IMGDEPLOYDIR instead of DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE for initrd X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2017 09:17:56 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 04:48:41PM -0500, Alejandro Hernandez wrote: > > > > From the DESCRIPTION: > > > > core-image-tiny-initramfs doesn't actually generate an image but > > rather generates boot and rootfs artifacts into a common > > location that can subsequently be picked up by external image > > generation tools such as wic. > This is the old description, when it was though that we would have a common > artifacts directory, which never happened due to some changes in wic > last year Can you elaborate on this please? I'm still thinking that having a common artifacts directory is what we should aim for. And DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE is a good candidate for it as most of artifacts are already there. -- Regards, Ed