On 07/12/2011 06:44 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On 07/12/2011 05:37 PM, Gary Thomas wrote:
On 07/12/2011 05:38 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On 07/12/2011 04:24 PM, Joshua Lock wrote:
This is for use in the Hob GUI to enable the user to change the type
of the
generated image.
Signed-off-by: Joshua Lock<[email protected]>
---
meta/classes/image_types.bbclass | 2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/classes/image_types.bbclass
b/meta/classes/image_types.bbclass
index 89a745c..29d7a57 100644
--- a/meta/classes/image_types.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/image_types.bbclass
@@ -102,3 +102,5 @@ IMAGE_DEPENDS_cpio.xz = "xz-native"
IMAGE_DEPENDS_ubi = "mtd-utils-native"
IMAGE_DEPENDS_ubifs = "mtd-utils-native"
+# This variable is available to request which values are suitable
for IMAGE_FSTYPES
+IMAGE_TYPES = "jffs2 cramfs ext2 ext2.gz ext3 ext3.gz squashfs
squashfs-lzma ubi ubifs"
Concept is fine, but please don't list ubi and ubifs just list ubi.
Perhaps the [brokwn] rule to explicitly build ubifs should also be purged?
Nope, that's how the ubi is created. Essentially at the time anyhow, OE
didn't make it too easy to add in an image that needs to be in a
container to be used. So we have the ubifs rule (yes, that needs a
cherry-pick from oe.dev) for 'advanced' users and the ubi rule to create
a simple ubi image.
I might be missing something, but I don't see why this rule is necessary
in image_types.bbclass:
IMAGE_CMD_ubifs = "mkfs.ubifs -r ${IMAGE_ROOTFS} -o
${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/${IMAGE_NAME}.ubifs.img ${MKUBIFS_ARGS}"
Having it there leads to the confusion (I was) that ubifs was useful.
At least for me, I can build ubi images with that rule removed.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas | Consulting for the
MLB Associates | Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
