Hello, ср, 18 сент. 2019 г. в 01:16, Richard Purdie <[email protected]>: > > On Tue, 2019-09-17 at 18:36 +0300, [email protected] wrote: > > From: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <[email protected]> > > > > Create new config file defining common variables for all UEFI-related > > packages (bootloaders, test applications, etc). > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov < > > [email protected]> > > --- > > meta/conf/uefi.conf | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 meta/conf/uefi.conf > > This is heading in the right direction however if we're going to try > and clean things up I've concluded we need to do it properly and get it > right. > > Now I understand more about how this configuration file is being used, > should it be called image-uefi.conf ?
Fine, I will rename the conf file > I feel really strongly that we do not want an uefi.bbclass, its simply > not warranted and will just continue to expand the current mess of > classes. If all we need it for is some functions, those functions > should be added elsewhere. As those EFI_PROVIDER bootloader classes are called only form live-vm-common, maybe I should just add them to live-vm-common and make individual classes _append those functions? > I'm also on the lookout for tests of these kinds of codepaths. Code is > much more likely to be accepted if tests are added for it. I'm not > quite sure what would make most sense here in this case buts its a > general point I will be pushing for going forward. What kind of tests would you like? This code already exists and is called as a part of any live image generation. -- With best wishes Dmitry -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
