On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Otavio Salvador
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> +OE-Core
>
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Robert P. J. Day <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Reformat the assignment to CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL to be more
>> intuitively obvious.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <[email protected]>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> compile and run-time tested, building a core-image-minimal for
>> qemuarm.
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/classes/core-image.bbclass
>> b/meta/classes/core-image.bbclass
>> index 1b36cba..d2b9d69 100644
>> --- a/meta/classes/core-image.bbclass
>> +++ b/meta/classes/core-image.bbclass
>> @@ -59,13 +59,11 @@ MACHINE_HWCODECS ??= ""
>> CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL = '\
>> packagegroup-core-boot \
>> packagegroup-base-extended \
>> - \
>> - ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL} \
>> '
>>
>> CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= ""
>>
>> -IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL}"
>> +IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL} ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL}"
>
> For me, more intuitively would be:
>
> CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL ?= ...
weak assignment here would mean overridable base install which is not
the intention. we want a working base image when inheriting core-image
>
> IMAGE_INSTALL += "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL} ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL}"
>
> So IMAGE_INSTALL += "foo" in local.conf works as expected by new users.
doesnt patch has same change ?
>
> --
> Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
> http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br
> Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
