again for purposes of tutorial, to clarify the second way to create new core image recipes, rather than "require"ing an existing recipe file (as before), inherit the fundamental class file with:
inherit core-image and here's the first question. here's the fundamental definition of the image contents from core-image.bbclass: CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL = '\ packagegroup-core-boot \ packagegroup-base-extended \ \ ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL} \ ' CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= "" IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL}" inherit image i've whined about this before ... can the above not be written more clearly as: CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= "" [is this even necessary?] IMAGE_INSTALL ?= '\ packagegroup-core-boot \ packagegroup-base-extended \ ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL} \ ' inherit image the current code is confusing since you have to read it twice to see what's going on ... is the second snippet not equivalent? and if not, what subtlety is going on there? but wait ... there's more. if this can be simplified as i've written, that drops any need for CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL, which doesn't look necessary in the first place. consider some examples of OE's use of this. here's core-image-minimal.bb, whose definition i have always hated since it inherits core-image, only to just stomp on IMAGE_INSTALL: IMAGE_INSTALL = "packagegroup-core-boot ${ROOTFS_PKGMANAGE_BOOTSTRAP} ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL}" IMAGE_LINGUAS = " " LICENSE = "MIT" inherit core-image i've learned to live with that, but let's continue. here's core-image-sato.bb: IMAGE_FEATURES += "splash package-management x11-base x11-sato ssh-server-dropbear hwcodecs" LICENSE = "MIT" inherit core-image IMAGE_INSTALL += "packagegroup-core-x11-sato-games" while the above is certainly technically correct, would it not make more sense to have written that last line as: CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL = "packagegroup-core-x11-sato-games" i mean, isn't that the whole point of the variable CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL ... to give recipe writers a simple and *clear* way of adding extra content to the core-image class? now look at core-image-weston.bb, which reads (in part): IMAGE_FEATURES += "splash package-management ssh-server-dropbear hwcodecs" inherit core-image ... CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL += "weston weston-init weston-examples gtk+3-demo clutter-1.0-examples" at this point, how many different way are there to add content to a core-image that all seem to work? and here's core-image-directfb: IMAGE_INSTALL += "\ ${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL} \ packagegroup-core-full-cmdline \ packagegroup-core-directfb \ " and here's core-image-clutter: IMAGE_INSTALL = "\ ${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL} \ packagegroup-core-clutter-core \ " everyone seems to have their own idea for how to extend core-image ... can this not be standardized so it's easier for people to RTFS? is there no preferred way to do the above for the sake of visual consistency? rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ======================================================================== -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core