* Re: [oe] [PATCH] core-image.bbclass: Reformat definition of CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL [not found] <alpine.LFD.2.11.1407111821080.6262@localhost> @ 2014-07-11 23:41 ` Otavio Salvador 2014-07-12 5:02 ` Khem Raj 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Otavio Salvador @ 2014-07-11 23:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: OpenEmbedded Devel List; +Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Hello, +OE-Core On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote: > > Reformat the assignment to CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL to be more > intuitively obvious. > > Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> > > --- > > compile and run-time tested, building a core-image-minimal for > qemuarm. > > diff --git a/meta/classes/core-image.bbclass b/meta/classes/core-image.bbclass > index 1b36cba..d2b9d69 100644 > --- a/meta/classes/core-image.bbclass > +++ b/meta/classes/core-image.bbclass > @@ -59,13 +59,11 @@ MACHINE_HWCODECS ??= "" > CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL = '\ > packagegroup-core-boot \ > packagegroup-base-extended \ > - \ > - ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL} \ > ' > > CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= "" > > -IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL}" > +IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL} ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL}" For me, more intuitively would be: CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL ?= ... IMAGE_INSTALL += "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL} ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL}" So IMAGE_INSTALL += "foo" in local.conf works as expected by new users. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [oe] [PATCH] core-image.bbclass: Reformat definition of CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL 2014-07-11 23:41 ` [oe] [PATCH] core-image.bbclass: Reformat definition of CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL Otavio Salvador @ 2014-07-12 5:02 ` Khem Raj 2014-07-12 8:41 ` Robert P. J. Day 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2014-07-12 5:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Otavio Salvador Cc: OpenEmbedded Devel List, Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote: > Hello, > > +OE-Core > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote: >> >> Reformat the assignment to CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL to be more >> intuitively obvious. >> >> Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> >> >> --- >> >> compile and run-time tested, building a core-image-minimal for >> qemuarm. >> >> diff --git a/meta/classes/core-image.bbclass b/meta/classes/core-image.bbclass >> index 1b36cba..d2b9d69 100644 >> --- a/meta/classes/core-image.bbclass >> +++ b/meta/classes/core-image.bbclass >> @@ -59,13 +59,11 @@ MACHINE_HWCODECS ??= "" >> CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL = '\ >> packagegroup-core-boot \ >> packagegroup-base-extended \ >> - \ >> - ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL} \ >> ' >> >> CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= "" >> >> -IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL}" >> +IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL} ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL}" > > For me, more intuitively would be: > > CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL ?= ... weak assignment here would mean overridable base install which is not the intention. we want a working base image when inheriting core-image > > IMAGE_INSTALL += "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL} ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL}" > > So IMAGE_INSTALL += "foo" in local.conf works as expected by new users. doesnt patch has same change ? > > -- > Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems > http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br > Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 > -- > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [oe] [PATCH] core-image.bbclass: Reformat definition of CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL 2014-07-12 5:02 ` Khem Raj @ 2014-07-12 8:41 ` Robert P. J. Day 2014-07-16 20:19 ` Khem Raj 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Robert P. J. Day @ 2014-07-12 8:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Khem Raj Cc: OpenEmbedded Devel List, Otavio Salvador, Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer On Fri, 11 Jul 2014, Khem Raj wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Otavio Salvador > <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > +OE-Core > > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote: > >> > >> Reformat the assignment to CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL to be more > >> intuitively obvious. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> > >> > >> --- > >> > >> compile and run-time tested, building a core-image-minimal for > >> qemuarm. > >> > >> diff --git a/meta/classes/core-image.bbclass b/meta/classes/core-image.bbclass > >> index 1b36cba..d2b9d69 100644 > >> --- a/meta/classes/core-image.bbclass > >> +++ b/meta/classes/core-image.bbclass > >> @@ -59,13 +59,11 @@ MACHINE_HWCODECS ??= "" > >> CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL = '\ > >> packagegroup-core-boot \ > >> packagegroup-base-extended \ > >> - \ > >> - ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL} \ > >> ' > >> > >> CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= "" > >> > >> -IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL}" > >> +IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL} ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL}" > > > > For me, more intuitively would be: > > > > CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL ?= ... > > weak assignment here would mean overridable base install which is > not the intention. we want a working base image when inheriting > core-image except that that argument doesn't really hold water given how one can inherit core-image, then (as i pointed out) immediately wipe out that supposedly inviolable definition of CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL by simply reassigning to IMAGE_INSTALL. i *like* the idea of a weak assignment to CORE_IMAGE_BASE INSTALL. it's effectively what core-image-minimal is doing anyway, it just allows you to do it in a way that's not grotesquely ugly. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ======================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [oe] [PATCH] core-image.bbclass: Reformat definition of CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL 2014-07-12 8:41 ` Robert P. J. Day @ 2014-07-16 20:19 ` Khem Raj 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2014-07-16 20:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robert P. J. Day Cc: openembedded-devel, Otavio Salvador, Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2786 bytes --] On Jul 12, 2014 1:41 AM, "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Jul 2014, Khem Raj wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Otavio Salvador > > <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > +OE-Core > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Robert P. J. Day < rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote: > > >> > > >> Reformat the assignment to CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL to be more > > >> intuitively obvious. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> > > >> > > >> --- > > >> > > >> compile and run-time tested, building a core-image-minimal for > > >> qemuarm. > > >> > > >> diff --git a/meta/classes/core-image.bbclass b/meta/classes/core-image.bbclass > > >> index 1b36cba..d2b9d69 100644 > > >> --- a/meta/classes/core-image.bbclass > > >> +++ b/meta/classes/core-image.bbclass > > >> @@ -59,13 +59,11 @@ MACHINE_HWCODECS ??= "" > > >> CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL = '\ > > >> packagegroup-core-boot \ > > >> packagegroup-base-extended \ > > >> - \ > > >> - ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL} \ > > >> ' > > >> > > >> CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= "" > > >> > > >> -IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL}" > > >> +IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL} ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL}" > > > > > > For me, more intuitively would be: > > > > > > CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL ?= ... > > > > weak assignment here would mean overridable base install which is > > not the intention. we want a working base image when inheriting > > core-image > > except that that argument doesn't really hold water given how one > can inherit core-image, then (as i pointed out) immediately wipe out > that supposedly inviolable definition of CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL by > simply reassigning to IMAGE_INSTALL. these classes are provided as basic working blocks. it would be a bad use case if one were to override basic constructs inside it completely. some variables are sort of interfaces some are not. besides your change is ok its just the preset is not. we should start using the constructs as intended. > > i *like* the idea of a weak assignment to CORE_IMAGE_BASE INSTALL. > it's effectively what core-image-minimal is doing anyway, it just > allows you to do it in a way that's not grotesquely ugly. > > rday > > -- > > ======================================================================== > Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA > http://crashcourse.ca > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday > LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday > ======================================================================== [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4073 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-07-16 20:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <alpine.LFD.2.11.1407111821080.6262@localhost>
2014-07-11 23:41 ` [oe] [PATCH] core-image.bbclass: Reformat definition of CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL Otavio Salvador
2014-07-12 5:02 ` Khem Raj
2014-07-12 8:41 ` Robert P. J. Day
2014-07-16 20:19 ` Khem Raj
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox