* Re: [yocto] Questions on multiconfig
[not found] <17775879C46AA70D.29484@lists.yoctoproject.org>
@ 2023-08-05 14:04 ` Stéphane Veyret
2023-08-05 15:54 ` Richard Purdie
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Stéphane Veyret @ 2023-08-05 14:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: yocto
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3421 bytes --]
Hello,
I’m answering to myself in case some other people have the same error.
My problem mostly came from my distro, which was the same for main image
and initramfs, and which was using systemd. Because systemd depends on the
kernel, and the kernel needs the embedded initramfs, there was a circular
dependency.
The correction was to create a specific distro for initramfs, using busybox
as init manager. And of course, configuring this distro in the
multiconfig/initramfs.conf file.
So, I can now answer to some of my questions:
Le mar. 1 août 2023 à 21:17, Stéphane Veyret via lists.yoctoproject.org
<sveyret=gmail.com@lists.yoctoproject.org> a écrit :
> First, I created a multiconfig/initramfs.conf file in my private layer
> containing:
>
> TMPDIR = "${TOPDIR}/tmp-initramfs"
> BUSYBOX_MY_INITRAMFS_CONFIG = "-initramfs"
>
> Then, I created a busybox_%.bbappend with this content:
>
> SRC_URI += "file://fragment.cfg;subdir=busybox-${PV}"
> BUSYBOX_MY_INITRAMFS_CONFIG ?= ""
> FILESEXTRAPATHS:prepend :=
> "${THISDIR}/${BPN}${BUSYBOX_MY_INITRAMFS_CONFIG}:"
>
> First question: is this the right way to create and use a custom variable?
> I want the recipe to choose the good fragment depending on
> BUSYBOX_MY_INITRAMFS_CONFIG, but I’m not sure it is really working.
>
Yes, the BUSYBOX_MY_INITRAMFS_CONFIG is used correctly, giving me 2
different busybox configuration, one for the initramfs and one for the main
image.
> After that, I added the following line in distro.conf:
>
> BBMULTICONFIG = "initramfs"
>
> Second question: documents state that this variable should be in
> local.conf, but it seems to also work in distro.conf; am I correct or is it
> creating unwanted side effects?
>
I didn’t notice any side effect. Note that I’m actually using an appending
syntax (+=) so that it is still possible to define additionnal multiconfig
if the build directory.
> First of all, I am spammed with messages like:
>
> NOTE: Deferred task
> mc:initramfs:/home/stephane/Developpements/yocto/sources/poky/meta/recipes-devtools/qemu/qemuwrapper-cross_1.0.bb:do_package_qa
> now buildable
> NOTE: Deferred task
> mc:initramfs:virtual:native:/home/stephane/Developpements/yocto/sources/poky/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.6.1.bb:do_populate_sysroot
> now buildable
>
I am still spammed by all these messages. I’d like to understand why. And
if possible, I’d also like to mute the messages I’ve seen and decided they
are not important. It doesn’t seem possible, so I may send a patch in the
future for that case.
> Other point, it seems to build a full image in the initramfs
> configuration, while I expected that it would only build the initramfs
> image. My first attempt (when the tmp-initramfs directory was empty) took
> ages to build and I saw it tried to build the Linux kernel in it.
>
No, it took ages because it was using systemd which is rather big, and
which has a dependency on the kernel.
> And on top of that, it fails because when building the kernel for
> initramfs configuration, it cannot find the initramfs image. Which sounds
> logical, because it is currently building the initramfs. So there seem to
> be a kind of circular dependencies…
>
The circular dependency was due to systemd. It has now disappeared…
--
Bien cordialement, / Plej kore,
Stéphane Veyret
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4928 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread