Re: [OE-core] Consistency and use cases for IMAGE_FSTYPES
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 09:34:02AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> On 03/23/2012 09:29 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 09:17:20AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> >> On 03/23/2012 08:48 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 01:14:24AM +, Richard Purdie
> >>> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 19:53 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:26:24PM +, Richard Purdie
> > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 14:39 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>> Hey all,
> >>>
> >>> Over in meta-ti I kicked off a discussion
> >>> (https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-ti/2012-March/000779.html)
> >>>
> >>>
> about if we should be using '?=' or '+=' with IMAGE_FSTYPES in the
> >>> machine conf files. This has been discussed a little
> >>> bit before
> >>> (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openembedded.core/2060/focus=2061).
> >>>
> >>>
> The problem is we have the following and I believe ultimately
> >>> conflicting use cases:
> >>
> >> I've been under the impression that we decided upon:
> >>
> >>> - The machine needs to say 'I need or support the
> >>> following formats'
> >>
> >> so the machine starts and sets:
> >>
> >> IMAGE_FSTYPES = ""
> >>
> >>> - The distro needs to say 'I always want format X'
> >>
> >> so the distro can do:
> >>
> >> IMAGE_FSTYPES += " yyy"
> >>
> >>> - The user needs to say 'I know best, give me only
> >>> format X'
> >>
> >> So the user can do:
> >>
> >> IMAGE_FSTYPES = "X"
> >
> > Since local.conf gets parsed before machine.conf and
> > distro.conf, the user needs to do this override:
> >
> > IMAGE_FSTYPES_local = "X"
> >
> > Otherwise machine.conf will always overwrite it with ""
> > with its unconditional assignment.
>
> Right, I'd forgotten that little detail :/.
>
> It actually makes me wonder if our include order is the right
> one but now isn't the time to try changing that.
>
> I agree the neatest way to change it is probably something
> like MACHINE_FSTYPES. I do worry a lot about backwards
> compatibility though and I'd also point out where we're at in
> the release cycle (bug fix only).
> >>>
> >>> Well, one problem that would make this a bugfix is that no one
> >>> does what you say we agreed on today. oe-core has qemu.inc
> >>> using ?=, meta-intel is using += and meta-ti is mixed (which is
> >>> what got this started).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Is this causing any nasty failures right now, or is it in the
> >> "this is a confusing mess and it would be nice to get it cleaned
> >> up" bucket? If the latter, I think I'd prefer to wait a bit an
> >> clean up the local.conf/machine.conf IMAGE_FSTYPES clobbering
> >> issue.
> >
> > Well, I found this as part of adding UBI support for a board and
> > it wasn't sticking.
> >
> > I'd go so far as to say that for a release, we really need to pick
> > a standard, document and follow it. If it's machine.conf does =,
> > everyone else does += and user's have to do _local =, fine, it
> > sucks but it's documented and consistent on all of the BSP layers.
> >
> >> If this isn't really fixable (for whatever requirements bitbake
> >> has on load/parse order of config files), then Koen's
> >> EXTRA_IMAGE_FSTYPES seems like the most consistent mechanism with
> >> other things, like CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL (OK, maybe
> >> IMAGE_EXTRA_FSTYPES ?).
> >>
> >> So the default becomes:
> >>
> >> IMAGE_FSTYPES ?= ${IMAGE_EXTRA_FSTYPES}
> >>
> >> and DISTROs might define that as:
> >>
> >> IMAGE_FSTYPES += "yyy"
> >>
> >> and users can update local.conf to be:
> >>
> >> IMAGE_FSTYPES = "X"
> >>
> >> But, doesn't this meant the DISTRO append will still change the
> >> IMAGE_FSTYPES to "X yyy" even though the user intended "only X"?
> >
> > How about: bitbake.conf: IMAGE_FSTYPES ??= ${IMAGE_EXTRA_FSTYPES}
> > distro.conf: IMAGE_FSTYPES ?= "yyy ${IMAGE_EXTRA_FSTYPES}"
> > local.conf: IMAGE_FSTYPES = "X"
> >
> > Or am I forgetting the magic of ??= again...
> >
>
> What would machine.conf do in this scenario?
OK, lets test things out. bitbake.conf, distro.conf set as above (with
machine.conf providing IMAGE_EXTRA_FSTYPES).
> IMAGE_FSTYPES_append_machine = "Z" ?
With this in local.conf, IMAGE_FSTYPES = "distro machineZ" (the fun of
_append semantics, you would have wanted " Z").
> IMAGE_EXTRA_FSTYPES = "Z"
Again in local.conf, this is ignored and it's the original problem.
Making this IMAGE_EXTRA_FSTYPES_local = "Z" is also ignored because
local overrides were removed in 83ce96f (really? ok..). Making this
IMAGE_EXTRA_FSTYPES_forcevariable = "Z" yields IMAGE_FSTYPES = "distro Z".
--
Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Re: [OE-core] Consistency and use cases for IMAGE_FSTYPES
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/23/2012 09:29 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 09:17:20AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>> On 03/23/2012 08:48 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 01:14:24AM +, Richard Purdie
>>> wrote:
On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 19:53 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:26:24PM +, Richard Purdie
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 14:39 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> Over in meta-ti I kicked off a discussion
>>> (https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-ti/2012-March/000779.html)
>>>
>>>
about if we should be using '?=' or '+=' with IMAGE_FSTYPES in the
>>> machine conf files. This has been discussed a little
>>> bit before
>>> (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openembedded.core/2060/focus=2061).
>>>
>>>
The problem is we have the following and I believe ultimately
>>> conflicting use cases:
>>
>> I've been under the impression that we decided upon:
>>
>>> - The machine needs to say 'I need or support the
>>> following formats'
>>
>> so the machine starts and sets:
>>
>> IMAGE_FSTYPES = ""
>>
>>> - The distro needs to say 'I always want format X'
>>
>> so the distro can do:
>>
>> IMAGE_FSTYPES += " yyy"
>>
>>> - The user needs to say 'I know best, give me only
>>> format X'
>>
>> So the user can do:
>>
>> IMAGE_FSTYPES = "X"
>
> Since local.conf gets parsed before machine.conf and
> distro.conf, the user needs to do this override:
>
> IMAGE_FSTYPES_local = "X"
>
> Otherwise machine.conf will always overwrite it with ""
> with its unconditional assignment.
Right, I'd forgotten that little detail :/.
It actually makes me wonder if our include order is the right
one but now isn't the time to try changing that.
I agree the neatest way to change it is probably something
like MACHINE_FSTYPES. I do worry a lot about backwards
compatibility though and I'd also point out where we're at in
the release cycle (bug fix only).
>>>
>>> Well, one problem that would make this a bugfix is that no one
>>> does what you say we agreed on today. oe-core has qemu.inc
>>> using ?=, meta-intel is using += and meta-ti is mixed (which is
>>> what got this started).
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Is this causing any nasty failures right now, or is it in the
>> "this is a confusing mess and it would be nice to get it cleaned
>> up" bucket? If the latter, I think I'd prefer to wait a bit an
>> clean up the local.conf/machine.conf IMAGE_FSTYPES clobbering
>> issue.
>
> Well, I found this as part of adding UBI support for a board and
> it wasn't sticking.
>
> I'd go so far as to say that for a release, we really need to pick
> a standard, document and follow it. If it's machine.conf does =,
> everyone else does += and user's have to do _local =, fine, it
> sucks but it's documented and consistent on all of the BSP layers.
>
>> If this isn't really fixable (for whatever requirements bitbake
>> has on load/parse order of config files), then Koen's
>> EXTRA_IMAGE_FSTYPES seems like the most consistent mechanism with
>> other things, like CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL (OK, maybe
>> IMAGE_EXTRA_FSTYPES ?).
>>
>> So the default becomes:
>>
>> IMAGE_FSTYPES ?= ${IMAGE_EXTRA_FSTYPES}
>>
>> and DISTROs might define that as:
>>
>> IMAGE_FSTYPES += "yyy"
>>
>> and users can update local.conf to be:
>>
>> IMAGE_FSTYPES = "X"
>>
>> But, doesn't this meant the DISTRO append will still change the
>> IMAGE_FSTYPES to "X yyy" even though the user intended "only X"?
>
> How about: bitbake.conf: IMAGE_FSTYPES ??= ${IMAGE_EXTRA_FSTYPES}
> distro.conf: IMAGE_FSTYPES ?= "yyy ${IMAGE_EXTRA_FSTYPES}"
> local.conf: IMAGE_FSTYPES = "X"
>
> Or am I forgetting the magic of ??= again...
>
What would machine.conf do in this scenario?
IMAGE_FSTYPES_append_machine = "Z" ?
or
IMAGE_EXTRA_FSTYPES = "Z"
- --
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPbKXvAAoJEKbMaAwKp364kN8IAKygG06LhMH7FI6E4L0xuX/U
i6szfRYOX2mWz6OAf/pPJtyvDjtwpgpLvRQEpOfIIVPciOlw/aTCZW9kGRG6hQtl
UxnNfyp25tqc7IFTm5AXVRvfMGlI+V7tXoPK117i/EXyuRQbPood5QUN6YUR+NXF
Bw0gxhYr/JSZtKiBCIRRbO7o5SSGpcDydOkG7RIsA3XS2dT5YzuGfFWTKbYyAct/
g97aqvxXxL3h+/kr5rJ9dR+qYjCsmkyqT6ePDzXlkzQEoQUHs+7u+u0Au8Sg+Sxg
W53G3MoOlzSjLojhTlTYfzuwxfEv7Jkg0q6hYOGUSlGPQ5Fuc8UfAiSi5MAQVL0=
=92cW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] Consistency and use cases for IMAGE_FSTYPES
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 09:17:20AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> On 03/23/2012 08:48 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 01:14:24AM +, Richard Purdie wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 19:53 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:26:24PM +, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 14:39 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > Over in meta-ti I kicked off a discussion
> > (https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-ti/2012-March/000779.html)
> > about if we should be using '?=' or '+=' with IMAGE_FSTYPES in the
> > machine conf files. This has been discussed a little bit before
> > (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openembedded.core/2060/focus=2061).
> > The problem is we have the following and I believe ultimately
> > conflicting use cases:
>
> I've been under the impression that we decided upon:
>
> > - The machine needs to say 'I need or support the following formats'
>
> so the machine starts and sets:
>
> IMAGE_FSTYPES = ""
>
> > - The distro needs to say 'I always want format X'
>
> so the distro can do:
>
> IMAGE_FSTYPES += " yyy"
>
> > - The user needs to say 'I know best, give me only format X'
>
> So the user can do:
>
> IMAGE_FSTYPES = "X"
> >>>
> >>> Since local.conf gets parsed before machine.conf and distro.conf, the
> >>> user
> >>> needs to do this override:
> >>>
> >>> IMAGE_FSTYPES_local = "X"
> >>>
> >>> Otherwise machine.conf will always overwrite it with "" with its
> >>> unconditional assignment.
> >>
> >> Right, I'd forgotten that little detail :/.
> >>
> >> It actually makes me wonder if our include order is the right one but
> >> now isn't the time to try changing that.
> >>
> >> I agree the neatest way to change it is probably something like
> >> MACHINE_FSTYPES. I do worry a lot about backwards compatibility though
> >> and I'd also point out where we're at in the release cycle (bug fix
> >> only).
> >
> > Well, one problem that would make this a bugfix is that no one does what
> > you say we agreed on today. oe-core has qemu.inc using ?=, meta-intel
> > is using += and meta-ti is mixed (which is what got this started).
> >
> >
>
> Is this causing any nasty failures right now, or is it in the "this is a
> confusing mess and it would be nice to get it cleaned up" bucket? If the
> latter, I think I'd prefer to wait a bit an clean up the
> local.conf/machine.conf IMAGE_FSTYPES clobbering issue.
Well, I found this as part of adding UBI support for a board and it
wasn't sticking.
I'd go so far as to say that for a release, we really need to pick a
standard, document and follow it. If it's machine.conf does =, everyone
else does += and user's have to do _local =, fine, it sucks but it's
documented and consistent on all of the BSP layers.
> If this isn't really fixable (for whatever requirements bitbake has on
> load/parse order of config files), then Koen's EXTRA_IMAGE_FSTYPES seems
> like the most consistent mechanism with other things, like
> CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL (OK, maybe IMAGE_EXTRA_FSTYPES ?).
>
> So the default becomes:
>
> IMAGE_FSTYPES ?= ${IMAGE_EXTRA_FSTYPES}
>
> and DISTROs might define that as:
>
> IMAGE_FSTYPES += "yyy"
>
> and users can update local.conf to be:
>
> IMAGE_FSTYPES = "X"
>
> But, doesn't this meant the DISTRO append will still change the
> IMAGE_FSTYPES to "X yyy" even though the user intended "only X"?
How about:
bitbake.conf: IMAGE_FSTYPES ??= ${IMAGE_EXTRA_FSTYPES}
distro.conf: IMAGE_FSTYPES ?= "yyy ${IMAGE_EXTRA_FSTYPES}"
local.conf: IMAGE_FSTYPES = "X"
Or am I forgetting the magic of ??= again...
--
Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] Consistency and use cases for IMAGE_FSTYPES
On 03/23/2012 08:48 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 01:14:24AM +, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 19:53 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:26:24PM +, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 14:39 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Over in meta-ti I kicked off a discussion
> (https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-ti/2012-March/000779.html)
> about if we should be using '?=' or '+=' with IMAGE_FSTYPES in the
> machine conf files. This has been discussed a little bit before
> (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openembedded.core/2060/focus=2061).
> The problem is we have the following and I believe ultimately
> conflicting use cases:
I've been under the impression that we decided upon:
> - The machine needs to say 'I need or support the following formats'
so the machine starts and sets:
IMAGE_FSTYPES = ""
> - The distro needs to say 'I always want format X'
so the distro can do:
IMAGE_FSTYPES += " yyy"
> - The user needs to say 'I know best, give me only format X'
So the user can do:
IMAGE_FSTYPES = "X"
>>>
>>> Since local.conf gets parsed before machine.conf and distro.conf, the user
>>> needs to do this override:
>>>
>>> IMAGE_FSTYPES_local = "X"
>>>
>>> Otherwise machine.conf will always overwrite it with "" with its
>>> unconditional assignment.
>>
>> Right, I'd forgotten that little detail :/.
>>
>> It actually makes me wonder if our include order is the right one but
>> now isn't the time to try changing that.
>>
>> I agree the neatest way to change it is probably something like
>> MACHINE_FSTYPES. I do worry a lot about backwards compatibility though
>> and I'd also point out where we're at in the release cycle (bug fix
>> only).
>
> Well, one problem that would make this a bugfix is that no one does what
> you say we agreed on today. oe-core has qemu.inc using ?=, meta-intel
> is using += and meta-ti is mixed (which is what got this started).
>
>
Is this causing any nasty failures right now, or is it in the "this is a
confusing mess and it would be nice to get it cleaned up" bucket? If the
latter, I think I'd prefer to wait a bit an clean up the
local.conf/machine.conf IMAGE_FSTYPES clobbering issue.
If this isn't really fixable (for whatever requirements bitbake has on
load/parse order of config files), then Koen's EXTRA_IMAGE_FSTYPES seems
like the most consistent mechanism with other things, like
CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL (OK, maybe IMAGE_EXTRA_FSTYPES ?).
So the default becomes:
IMAGE_FSTYPES ?= ${IMAGE_EXTRA_FSTYPES}
and DISTROs might define that as:
IMAGE_FSTYPES += "yyy"
and users can update local.conf to be:
IMAGE_FSTYPES = "X"
But, doesn't this meant the DISTRO append will still change the
IMAGE_FSTYPES to "X yyy" even though the user intended "only X"?
--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] Consistency and use cases for IMAGE_FSTYPES
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 01:14:24AM +, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 19:53 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:26:24PM +, Richard Purdie wrote: > > > On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 14:39 -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > Hey all, > > > > > > > > Over in meta-ti I kicked off a discussion > > > > (https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-ti/2012-March/000779.html) > > > > about if we should be using '?=' or '+=' with IMAGE_FSTYPES in the > > > > machine conf files. This has been discussed a little bit before > > > > (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openembedded.core/2060/focus=2061). > > > > The problem is we have the following and I believe ultimately > > > > conflicting use cases: > > > > > > I've been under the impression that we decided upon: > > > > > > > - The machine needs to say 'I need or support the following formats' > > > > > > so the machine starts and sets: > > > > > > IMAGE_FSTYPES = "" > > > > > > > - The distro needs to say 'I always want format X' > > > > > > so the distro can do: > > > > > > IMAGE_FSTYPES += " yyy" > > > > > > > - The user needs to say 'I know best, give me only format X' > > > > > > So the user can do: > > > > > > IMAGE_FSTYPES = "X" > > > > Since local.conf gets parsed before machine.conf and distro.conf, the user > > needs to do this override: > > > > IMAGE_FSTYPES_local = "X" > > > > Otherwise machine.conf will always overwrite it with "" with its > > unconditional assignment. > > Right, I'd forgotten that little detail :/. > > It actually makes me wonder if our include order is the right one but > now isn't the time to try changing that. > > I agree the neatest way to change it is probably something like > MACHINE_FSTYPES. I do worry a lot about backwards compatibility though > and I'd also point out where we're at in the release cycle (bug fix > only). Well, one problem that would make this a bugfix is that no one does what you say we agreed on today. oe-core has qemu.inc using ?=, meta-intel is using += and meta-ti is mixed (which is what got this started). -- Tom signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] Consistency and use cases for IMAGE_FSTYPES
On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 19:53 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:26:24PM +, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 14:39 -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > > > Hey all, > > > > > > Over in meta-ti I kicked off a discussion > > > (https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-ti/2012-March/000779.html) > > > about if we should be using '?=' or '+=' with IMAGE_FSTYPES in the > > > machine conf files. This has been discussed a little bit before > > > (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openembedded.core/2060/focus=2061). > > > The problem is we have the following and I believe ultimately > > > conflicting use cases: > > > > I've been under the impression that we decided upon: > > > > > - The machine needs to say 'I need or support the following formats' > > > > so the machine starts and sets: > > > > IMAGE_FSTYPES = "" > > > > > - The distro needs to say 'I always want format X' > > > > so the distro can do: > > > > IMAGE_FSTYPES += " yyy" > > > > > - The user needs to say 'I know best, give me only format X' > > > > So the user can do: > > > > IMAGE_FSTYPES = "X" > > Since local.conf gets parsed before machine.conf and distro.conf, the user > needs to do this override: > > IMAGE_FSTYPES_local = "X" > > Otherwise machine.conf will always overwrite it with "" with its > unconditional assignment. Right, I'd forgotten that little detail :/. It actually makes me wonder if our include order is the right one but now isn't the time to try changing that. I agree the neatest way to change it is probably something like MACHINE_FSTYPES. I do worry a lot about backwards compatibility though and I'd also point out where we're at in the release cycle (bug fix only). Cheers, Richard ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] Consistency and use cases for IMAGE_FSTYPES
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:26:24PM +, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 14:39 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > Over in meta-ti I kicked off a discussion
> > (https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-ti/2012-March/000779.html)
> > about if we should be using '?=' or '+=' with IMAGE_FSTYPES in the
> > machine conf files. This has been discussed a little bit before
> > (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openembedded.core/2060/focus=2061).
> > The problem is we have the following and I believe ultimately
> > conflicting use cases:
>
> I've been under the impression that we decided upon:
>
> > - The machine needs to say 'I need or support the following formats'
>
> so the machine starts and sets:
>
> IMAGE_FSTYPES = ""
>
> > - The distro needs to say 'I always want format X'
>
> so the distro can do:
>
> IMAGE_FSTYPES += " yyy"
>
> > - The user needs to say 'I know best, give me only format X'
>
> So the user can do:
>
> IMAGE_FSTYPES = "X"
Richard,
Since local.conf gets parsed before machine.conf and distro.conf, the user
needs to do this override:
IMAGE_FSTYPES_local = "X"
Otherwise machine.conf will always overwrite it with "" with its
unconditional assignment.
--
Denys
> > - The user needs to say 'I know best, give me what you support + X'
>
> IMAGE_FSTYPES += " X"
>
> > We achieve this today, but not very nicely. For the last one you need
> > to start playing order of operations games and that's just not nice.
> > My suggestion is that we need to change what the machine.conf sets to
> > another variable (SOMETHING_IMAGE_FSTYPES), and a default
> > IMAGE_FSTYPES becomes ?= ${SOMETHING_IMAGE_FSTYPES}. Distros, and
> > users can then work more easily with their use cases. Comments?
>
> I think this is overcomplicating things. Yes the order is important but
> lets just document the above?
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] Consistency and use cases for IMAGE_FSTYPES
On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 14:39 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Over in meta-ti I kicked off a discussion
> (https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-ti/2012-March/000779.html)
> about if we should be using '?=' or '+=' with IMAGE_FSTYPES in the
> machine conf files. This has been discussed a little bit before
> (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openembedded.core/2060/focus=2061).
> The problem is we have the following and I believe ultimately
> conflicting use cases:
I've been under the impression that we decided upon:
> - The machine needs to say 'I need or support the following formats'
so the machine starts and sets:
IMAGE_FSTYPES = ""
> - The distro needs to say 'I always want format X'
so the distro can do:
IMAGE_FSTYPES += " yyy"
> - The user needs to say 'I know best, give me only format X'
So the user can do:
IMAGE_FSTYPES = "X"
> - The user needs to say 'I know best, give me what you support + X'
IMAGE_FSTYPES += " X"
> We achieve this today, but not very nicely. For the last one you need
> to start playing order of operations games and that's just not nice.
> My suggestion is that we need to change what the machine.conf sets to
> another variable (SOMETHING_IMAGE_FSTYPES), and a default
> IMAGE_FSTYPES becomes ?= ${SOMETHING_IMAGE_FSTYPES}. Distros, and
> users can then work more easily with their use cases. Comments?
I think this is overcomplicating things. Yes the order is important but
lets just document the above?
Cheers,
Richard
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] Consistency and use cases for IMAGE_FSTYPES
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 04:25:24PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 07:29:20AM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >
> > Op 9 mrt. 2012, om 22:39 heeft Tom Rini het volgende geschreven:
> >
> > > Hey all,
> > >
> > > Over in meta-ti I kicked off a discussion
> > > (https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-ti/2012-March/000779.html)
> > > about if we should be using '?=' or '+=' with IMAGE_FSTYPES in the
> > > machine conf files. This has been discussed a little bit before
> > > (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openembedded.core/2060/focus=2061).
> > > The problem is we have the following and I believe ultimately
> > > conflicting use cases:
> > > - The machine needs to say 'I need or support the following formats'
> > > - The distro needs to say 'I always want format X'
> > > - The user needs to say 'I know best, give me only format X'
> > > - The user needs to say 'I know best, give me what you support + X'
> > >
> > > We achieve this today, but not very nicely. For the last one you need
> > > to start playing order of operations games and that's just not nice.
> > > My suggestion is that we need to change what the machine.conf sets to
> > > another variable (SOMETHING_IMAGE_FSTYPES), and a default
> > > IMAGE_FSTYPES becomes ?= ${SOMETHING_IMAGE_FSTYPES}. Distros, and
> > > users can then work more easily with their use cases. Comments?
> >
> > EXTRA_IMAGE_FSTYPES!
>
> +1
>
> MACHINE_IMAGE_FSTYPES + DISTRO_IMAGE_FSTYPES? jk :)
Having gotten no other feedback (*cough*) I'll post a patch for
SOMETHING_IMAGE_FSTYPES (I'm leaning MACHINE_IMAGE_FSTYPES, sorry Koen :))
sometime tomorrow I think.
--
Tom
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] Consistency and use cases for IMAGE_FSTYPES
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 07:29:20AM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>
> Op 9 mrt. 2012, om 22:39 heeft Tom Rini het volgende geschreven:
>
> > Hey all,
> >
> > Over in meta-ti I kicked off a discussion
> > (https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-ti/2012-March/000779.html)
> > about if we should be using '?=' or '+=' with IMAGE_FSTYPES in the
> > machine conf files. This has been discussed a little bit before
> > (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openembedded.core/2060/focus=2061).
> > The problem is we have the following and I believe ultimately
> > conflicting use cases:
> > - The machine needs to say 'I need or support the following formats'
> > - The distro needs to say 'I always want format X'
> > - The user needs to say 'I know best, give me only format X'
> > - The user needs to say 'I know best, give me what you support + X'
> >
> > We achieve this today, but not very nicely. For the last one you need
> > to start playing order of operations games and that's just not nice.
> > My suggestion is that we need to change what the machine.conf sets to
> > another variable (SOMETHING_IMAGE_FSTYPES), and a default
> > IMAGE_FSTYPES becomes ?= ${SOMETHING_IMAGE_FSTYPES}. Distros, and
> > users can then work more easily with their use cases. Comments?
>
> EXTRA_IMAGE_FSTYPES!
+1
MACHINE_IMAGE_FSTYPES + DISTRO_IMAGE_FSTYPES? jk :)
--
Denys
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] Consistency and use cases for IMAGE_FSTYPES
Op 9 mrt. 2012, om 22:39 heeft Tom Rini het volgende geschreven:
> Hey all,
>
> Over in meta-ti I kicked off a discussion
> (https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-ti/2012-March/000779.html)
> about if we should be using '?=' or '+=' with IMAGE_FSTYPES in the
> machine conf files. This has been discussed a little bit before
> (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openembedded.core/2060/focus=2061).
> The problem is we have the following and I believe ultimately
> conflicting use cases:
> - The machine needs to say 'I need or support the following formats'
> - The distro needs to say 'I always want format X'
> - The user needs to say 'I know best, give me only format X'
> - The user needs to say 'I know best, give me what you support + X'
>
> We achieve this today, but not very nicely. For the last one you need
> to start playing order of operations games and that's just not nice.
> My suggestion is that we need to change what the machine.conf sets to
> another variable (SOMETHING_IMAGE_FSTYPES), and a default
> IMAGE_FSTYPES becomes ?= ${SOMETHING_IMAGE_FSTYPES}. Distros, and
> users can then work more easily with their use cases. Comments?
EXTRA_IMAGE_FSTYPES!
regards,
Koen
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
