Re: can "IMAGE_INSTALL ?= ..." not be written in a more obvious way?

[Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
> [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
> Khem Raj
> Sent: den 10 december 2016 22:16
> To: Robert P. J. Day
> Cc: OE Core mailing list
> Subject: Re: [OE-core] can "IMAGE_INSTALL ?= ..." not be written in a
> more obvious way?
> 
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 3:40 AM, Robert P. J. Day
> <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> >
> >   i've nattered about this before but not sure i ever got an answer --
> > here's the last bit of core-image.bbclass:
> >
> >   CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL = '\
> >     packagegroup-core-boot \
> >     packagegroup-base-extended \
> >     \
> >     ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL} \
> >     '
> >
> >   CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= ""
> >
> >   IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL}"
> >
> > the first time i saw that (long ago), it took me a few looks to figure
> > out what was happening. can this not be written in a more obvious way:
> >
> >   CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL = '\
> >     packagegroup-core-boot \
> >     packagegroup-base-extended \
> >     '
> >
> >   CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= ""
> >
> >   IMAGE_INSTALL ?= " \
> >     ${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL} \
> >     ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL} \
> >     "
> >
> > is that not equivalent, or am i missing something? it's certainly
> > clearer as to what's happening if people are perusing the code.
> 
> They are same AFAICT, dont feel strongly  about readability but feel
> free to send a patch

Careful now. Changing these can affect image recipes outside of OE-core.
If one has an image recipe that inherits core-image and then defines 

IMAGE_INSTALL = "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL} my-own-packages ..."

then changing CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL as per above would suddenly 
cause that image to miss including packages that it previously did.

I recommend leaving it as is.

//Peter