Hi Alper, On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 at 13:17, Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2023-08-24 06:02 +03:00, Simon Glass wrote: > > In this early stage of using binman to produce output files, we are mostly > > seeing people using common extensions such as '.bin' and '.rom' > > > > But unusual extensions appear in some places. > > > > We would like 'buildman -k' to keep the build outputs, but this is hard if > > there is no consistency as to the extension used. > > > > This series adjusts binman to enforce just 4 extensions for output images: > > > > .bin > > .rom > > .itb > > .img > > > > Other extensions will produce an error. With this rule observed, buildman > > can keep the required files. > > I dislike this limitation. We know what files we will generate, they are > listed in binman dtb, so we can add something like `binman build --ls` > to print their names/paths for buildman to preserve them.
Yes, it would be good to have that... But why do you dislike the limitation? Do you think extensions provide useful information? I suppose one problem is that *.bin might pick up private blobs that happen to be in the source directory? > > Regarding the output directory suggestion, I think the binman outputs > (not temporary/intermediate files) should be in the same directory as > make outputs Agreed >, and the Makefile should default to O=build to achieve the > "output dir". I'm not sure if that's going to happen. I would quite like the 'non-output' file (i.e. things that are not a binman image) to appear in a 'binman-work' subdir of the output dir. What do you think? Regards, Simon
