On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 6:07 AM Mikko Rapeli <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 04:53:58PM -0300, Ricardo Salveti wrote: > > Wouldn't it be better if this was a kernel class instead, similar to > > how it is done with fitimage (via kernel-fitimage.bbclass)? > > > > I see a lot of similarities here, and it is confusing that one is done > > as a kernel class and the other is added by including in the image > > recipe instead. > > Interesting idea. I'll have a look. Maybe this could be an improvement > on top of the uki.bbclass.
Yes, the current patch set seems to be quite functional and we can work based on it. > UKI combines kernel, initramfs image etc > so the implementation can be an image class, kernel class or some > magic post processing (e.g. wic) but needs to be generated using > systemd tooling. Thus I think image class it is for now. I agree > that setting this up is not nice. Need to configure initrd, kernel > command line, kernel, systemd-boot etc and all the config switches > are independent. At least the selftests will contain a fully > working example so users can replicate that in their builds. Right, for fitimage we have a similar build dependency chain, and why I was wondering if it could be also made available via a kernel-class. Thanks, -- Ricardo Salveti
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#205407): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/205407 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/108906947/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
