On Thu, 2023-06-29 at 13:45 +0300, Mikko Rapeli wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 05:47:21PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Wed, 2023-06-28 at 08:56 -0400, Armin Kuster wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > conf/layer.conf | 3 +++ > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/conf/layer.conf b/conf/layer.conf > > > index 334a945..5f289cb 100644 > > > --- a/conf/layer.conf > > > +++ b/conf/layer.conf > > > @@ -28,4 +28,7 @@ INHERIT += "sanity-meta-security" > > > > > > QB_KERNEL_CMDLINE_APPEND = " ${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', > > > 'apparmor', 'apparmor=1 security=apparmor', '', d)}" > > > > > > +# We need more mem to run many apps in this layer > > > +QB_MEM="-m 2048" > > > + > > > addpylib ${LAYERDIR}/lib oeqa > > > > Putting that unconditionally in a layer.conf is a pretty poor thing to > > do for usability IMO as it effectively forces that decision on anyone > > including the layer. There has to be a better way to handle that, at > > least conditionally on some override? > > Currently these belong logically to machine config but what about generic > machine targets. Could an image config define how much memory is needed > to run the image on qemu?
I believe Armin did move these to the image recipe which is what we do in core in some cases for this too. I think that makes more sense. Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#60474): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/60474 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/99829661/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/leave/6691583/21656/737036229/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
