Re: [OE-core][RFC PATCH 2/2] image.bbclass: deploy image artifacts in stages

["Richard Purdie" <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, 2020-03-30 at 18:26 +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> pon., 23 mar 2020 o 18:28 Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
> napisał(a):
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
> > 
> > Make each IMAGE_CMD task an sstate task with its own IMGDEPLOYDIR
> > override. This way each generated set of artifacts is deployed as
> > soon
> > as it's ready instead of the do_image_complete task handling the
> > entire
> > deployement. This allows us to better fine-tune dependencies e.g.
> > we
> > can make do_image_wic depend on fitImage task which can in turn
> > depend
> > on do_image_ext4.
> > 
> > We need to completely delete the do_package task in order to avoid
> > problems with task hash changes as well as delete the IMGDEPLOYDIR
> > variable from the data object passed to each image task so that
> > it's
> > expanded with the correct override.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
> 
> It's been a week. Can I get some feedback on this? Is the idea at
> least remotely acceptable/can we build upon it?

FWIW at a quick glance I didn't think it was too bad.

I think there will be corner cases to resolve which I was hoping to
look into and give some pointers to but I haven't had the time.

I'm hoping somehow we can improve the FIXME you mention too.

The do_package change should probably be separated out - I'm guessing
we did noexec there for a reason though?

Also, you used {}.format which I'm torn on since most of the codebase
uses the other approach.

Its too late to get this into 3.1 and that is where I'm focusing my
effort right now but I think this is probably going the right way.

Cheers,

Richard