From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.chez-thomas.org (mail.mlbassoc.com [65.100.170.105]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FF5F65CBD for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 11:29:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix, from userid 1998) id 21558F811D9; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 05:30:00 -0600 (MDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on hermes.chez-thomas.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 Received: from [192.168.1.114] (zeus [192.168.1.114]) by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C63F81188; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 05:29:59 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <55A8E744.3060509@mlbassoc.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 05:30:12 -0600 From: Gary Thomas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Eggleton References: <55A8DF6B.3040909@mlbassoc.com> <2990247.hoeDgcCp8y@peggleto-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <2990247.hoeDgcCp8y@peggleto-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com> Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: image.bbclass vs core-image.bbclass 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: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 11:30:02 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2015-07-17 05:14, Paul Eggleton wrote: > Hi Gary, > > On Friday 17 July 2015 04:56:43 Gary Thomas wrote: >> Why are some ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMANDs being set in image.bbclass >> and others in core-image.bbclass? If I build an image using only >> image.bbclass, I miss the settings from core-image.bbclass (which >> is somewhat misnamed IMO since it's heavier than image.bbclass)? >> >> Is there some reason not to have all of the ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMANDs >> just in image.bbclass alone? > > The existence of this class is kind of a legacy from when parts of Poky became > OE-Core - originally core-image.bbclass was called poky-image.bbclass, and > what was in it was specific to Poky. We had to bring it over though because all > of our example images, which we need to have for verification (if nothing > else), inherited from it and still do. We've made minor adjustments to core- > image.bbclass since then but there are still things in there that are clearly > "distro" type definitions that don't make sense for everyone; so far nobody has > really stepped up to find any better common items or reasonable defaults > (perhaps there aren't any, though I doubt that). > > There is a bug open assigned to me to try to sort this out, but to be honest > I've been struggling with how to best to do it: > > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5424 > > I'm open to any suggestions, because I do think the dichotomy between these > classes ought to be resolved if it can be done practically. > > Specifically on the ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMANDs, those do look like they ought > to somehow be in image.bbclass if they can be added in a manner that doesn't > interfere with people's ability to create images that aren't rootfses. It seems that many of the ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMANDs in image.bbclass already assume that a rootfs is being built. To me the ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMANDs that are in core-image.bbclass don't seem any more invasive than the ones in image.bbclass. For starters, I'd like to see them moved to image.bbclass. It's also quite strange that the read-only-rootfs hook is defined in image.bbclass but only invoked from core-image.bbclass?? [That's the one that lead me down this road] Any objections to a patch that does that? -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Thomas | Consulting for the MLB Associates | Embedded world ------------------------------------------------------------