On Mon, 2017-05-15 at 08:50 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Patrick Ohly <patrick.o...@intel.com> wrote:
> > Enabling "debug-tweaks" unconditionally, even if it is only in the
> > local.conf.sample file, runs the risk of that getting used in
> > production images.
> >
> > By checking the per-image IMAGE_MODE, the debug tweaks only get
> > enabled for images not meant for production.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Patrick Ohly <patrick.o...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > meta/conf/local.conf.sample | 5 +++--
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/meta/conf/local.conf.sample b/meta/conf/local.conf.sample
> > index 85c5e21..edadbb7 100644
> > --- a/meta/conf/local.conf.sample
> > +++ b/meta/conf/local.conf.sample
> > @@ -114,8 +114,9 @@ PACKAGE_CLASSES ?= "package_ipk"
> > # e.g. ssh root access has a blank password
> > # There are other application targets that can be used here too, see
> > # meta/classes/image.bbclass and meta/classes/core-image.bbclass for more
> > details.
> > -# We default to enabling the debugging tweaks.
> > -EXTRA_IMAGE_FEATURES ?= "debug-tweaks"
> > +# We default to enabling the debugging tweaks unless an image is explicitly
> > +# requested to be built for production.
> > +EXTRA_IMAGE_FEATURES ?= "${@ '' if 'production' == d.getVar('IMAGE_MODE')
> > else 'debug-tweaks'}"
>
> is IMAGE_MODE defined per image recipe ?
Conceptually it is, although I guess it might get set globally in
practice.
The class just defines the empty string (= no specific mode) as ??=
default. Then a distro's local.conf sample can define a weak ?= default,
probably "development" (similar to the current practice of enabling
debug-tweaks in local.conf.sample). Finally, specific image recipes
(like a core-image-minimal-development.bb which includes
core-image-minimal.bb) can force a fixed mode with
IMAGE_MODE_forcevariable = "development".
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
