From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.windriver.com (mail.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 455166C894 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:13:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ALA-HCB.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hcb.corp.ad.wrs.com [147.11.189.41]) by mail.windriver.com (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r8HBE1A1021239 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 17 Sep 2013 04:14:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.224.22.106] (128.224.22.106) by ALA-HCB.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.342.3; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 04:14:00 -0700 Message-ID: <52383977.5080009@windriver.com> Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 06:13:59 -0500 From: Jason Wessel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130308 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Darren Hart References: <1379117343-29877-1-git-send-email-jason.wessel@windriver.com> <1379117343-29877-8-git-send-email-jason.wessel@windriver.com> <1379354273.1285.169.camel@dvhart-mobl4.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <1379354273.1285.169.camel@dvhart-mobl4.amr.corp.intel.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Cc: Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH 7/7] bootimage.bbclass, zisofs-tools-native: add ability to compress ISO images 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: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:13:59 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 09/16/2013 12:57 PM, Darren Hart wrote: > On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 19:09 -0500, Jason Wessel wrote: >> +COMPRESSISO ?= "" > > > Would an explicit '0' here be better? That is fine by me. >> + >> +do_install() { >> + oe_runmake install INSTALLROOT=${D} bindir=${bindir} >> +} > > Does EXTRA_OEMAKE not work here? I see it isn't listed in the reference > manual for the install step (just the compile step), so perhaps not. > Just wanted to check. It does not work. I could patch the Makefile to make it work but I don't think it is worth it, vs just leaving things unchanged for future uprev ease. Cheers, Jason.