On 07/12/2011 05:52 PM, Gary Thomas wrote: > 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.
OK, refreshed my memory again. We have ubifs (and it might indeed need some quick kicking/fixing) target (a) since that's what was there to start with, but not quite enough (b) for advanced users. There is a point to making a ubifs image which is when you're making a complex ubi volume (either outside of OE or in your collection/layer that provides a more complex ubinize conf). The problem in oe-core today is that we were using non-standard extensions on the ubifs part to try and distinguish between usable standalone files (ubi) and parts (ubifs). -- Tom Rini Mentor Graphics Corporation _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
