On 3/14/16 15:58 , Rudolf Streif wrote:
Richard,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:55 PM, K Richard Pixley <r...@noir.com
<mailto:r...@noir.com>> wrote:
If I add that line, (
IMAGE_FSTYPES = "vmdk"
), to my local.conf, I get:
rich@burgess> time bitbake core-image-minimal
ERROR: OE-core's config sanity checker detected a potential
misconfiguration.
Either fix the cause of this error or at your own risk
disable the checker (see sanity.conf).
Following is the list of potential problems / advisories:
Error, IMAGE_FSTYPES vmdk and live can't be built together
Summary: There was 1 ERROR message shown, returning a non-zero
exit code.
Building yocto-2.0 for genericx86-64. What am I doing wrong?
Nothing really. The issue is conflicting SYSLINUX_LABELS for the boot
options. For the live image the labels are boot and install while
there is only boot for the vmdk image. Prior to 2.0 Jethro you could
specify both, live and vmdk, in IMAGE_FSTYPES. It built both but the
live image was missing the install boot option (it had two boot
options instead). This function in syslinux.bbclass now flags the issue:
# Some of the vars for vm and live image are conflicted, this function
# is used for fixing the problem.
def syslinux_set_vars(d, suffix):
vars = ['SYSLINUX_ROOT', 'SYSLINUX_CFG', 'LABELS', 'INITRD']
for var in vars:
var_with_suffix = var + '_'+ suffix
if d.getVar(var, True):
bb.warn('Found potential conflicted var %s, please use %s
rather than %s'% \
(var, var_with_suffix, var))
elif d.getVar(var_with_suffix, True):
d.setVar(var, d.getVar(var_with_suffix, True))
Technically, in my opinion, you should be able to build both at the
same time. You may want to disable the sanity checker.
Thank you.
What stops us from building different boot labels for different images?
That seems like the obvious choice. Or perhaps, using "boot" for all
syslinux images and adding "install" for "live" images.
--rich
--
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
