On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Gary Thomas <g...@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
> Most likely the image defined its own IMAGE_INSTALL using ?=, so defining >> it yourself in the configuration data overrode its default definition, >> since ?= is "set only if unset". If >> the recipe didn't use ?=, then your IMAGE_INSTALL += would have had no >> effect at all. To append to IMAGE_INSTALL directly without using >> CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL you could have used >> IMAGE_INSTALL_append, since that's a postponed operation that happens at >> the end of the recipe parsing. >> > > That makes sense, thanks. I'll stick to using CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL > from now on! That's best, indeed. This is a case where there's a real difference between variables intended for the user to override from configuration, and those which are not. IMAGE_INSTALL is a detail of how images are constructed, CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL is an explicit hook provided to the user to non-destructively add packages to an image, so we don't have to try to guess at what the recipe will do with it -- it has explicit semantics, so we know this. There might be value in differentiating between cases like this in the documentation, if we don't already. -- Christopher Larson clarson at kergoth dot com Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus Maintainer - Tslib Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics
-- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto