On Friday 17 July 2015 05:30:12 Gary Thomas wrote: > On 2015-07-17 05:14, Paul Eggleton wrote: > > Hi Gary, > > > > On Friday 17 July 2015 04:56:43 Gary Thomas wrote: > >> Why are some ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMANDs being set in image.bbclass > >> and others in core-image.bbclass? If I build an image using only > >> image.bbclass, I miss the settings from core-image.bbclass (which > >> is somewhat misnamed IMO since it's heavier than image.bbclass)? > >> > >> Is there some reason not to have all of the ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMANDs > >> just in image.bbclass alone? > > > > The existence of this class is kind of a legacy from when parts of Poky > > became OE-Core - originally core-image.bbclass was called > > poky-image.bbclass, and what was in it was specific to Poky. We had to > > bring it over though because all of our example images, which we need to > > have for verification (if nothing else), inherited from it and still do. > > We've made minor adjustments to core- image.bbclass since then but there > > are still things in there that are clearly "distro" type definitions that > > don't make sense for everyone; so far nobody has really stepped up to > > find any better common items or reasonable defaults (perhaps there aren't > > any, though I doubt that). > > > > There is a bug open assigned to me to try to sort this out, but to be > > honest> > > I've been struggling with how to best to do it: > > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5424 > > > > I'm open to any suggestions, because I do think the dichotomy between > > these > > classes ought to be resolved if it can be done practically. > > > > Specifically on the ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMANDs, those do look like they > > ought to somehow be in image.bbclass if they can be added in a manner > > that doesn't interfere with people's ability to create images that aren't > > rootfses. > > It seems that many of the ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMANDs in image.bbclass > already assume that a rootfs is being built.
You could well be right yes. > To me the ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMANDs that are in core-image.bbclass > don't seem any more invasive than the ones in image.bbclass. For starters, > I'd like to see them moved to image.bbclass. It's also quite strange that > the read-only-rootfs hook is defined in image.bbclass but only invoked > from core-image.bbclass?? [That's the one that lead me down this road] > > Any objections to a patch that does that? None on my end, certainly... Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
