On March 4, 2015 8:15:15 AM GMT+01:00, Naresh Bhat <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 3 March 2015 at 23:27, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 3 March 2015 at 16:46, Naresh Bhat <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Build iso image required syslinux package. We have already skip the
>syslinux
>>> package. Hence just skip the iso image build too.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Naresh Bhat <[email protected]>
>>> Reviewed-by: Matt Fleming <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> meta/classes/bootimg.bbclass | 6 +++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/meta/classes/bootimg.bbclass
>b/meta/classes/bootimg.bbclass
>>> index a8e0c19..2edba3a 100644
>>> --- a/meta/classes/bootimg.bbclass
>>> +++ b/meta/classes/bootimg.bbclass
>>> @@ -266,7 +266,11 @@ python do_bootimg() {
>>> if d.getVar("EFI", True) == "1":
>>> bb.build.exec_func('build_efi_cfg', d)
>>> bb.build.exec_func('build_hddimg', d)
>>> - bb.build.exec_func('build_iso', d)
>>> +
>>> + if [ "${TARGET_ARCH}" == "aarch64" ]:
>>> + return
>>
>> erm is this shell-code or python-code?
>>
>> For the former there is no "==" operator for POSIX-compliant test(1)
>> implementations, for the latter the "[" looks suspicious.
>>
>> What am i missing?
>> thanks,
>
>Ah my mistake, Probably I could have implemented as below
>
>if d.getVar('TARGET_ARCH', True) == "aarch64":
> return
>
>Does it make sense ?
At least the parser should grok it.
The change itself does not make sense to me either way.
Thanks,
>
>>> + else:
>>> + bb.build.exec_func('build_iso', d)
>>> }
>>>
>>> IMAGE_TYPEDEP_iso = "ext3"
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
