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 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > >> On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 19:53 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > >>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:26:24PM +0000, 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 = "xxxx" > >>>> > >>>>> - 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 "xxxx" 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
