IMAGE_TYPE vs IMAGE_TYPE(S)

IMAGE_TYPE vs IMAGE_TYPE(S)

[cedric_hombourger]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 889 bytes --]

Hello!

The documentation suggests that IMAGE_TYPE may be a list of images to be 
built:

   | The `IMAGE_TYPE` variable contains the list of image types to generate.

(ref: https://github.com/ilbers/isar/blob/master/doc/user_manual.md#image-type-selection)

It appears that one could set this to e.g. "ext4-img wic-img" to get Isar 
to generate both an EXT4 image and a WIC image.
Alright.

But then how about this code:

   | if d.getVar('IMAGE_TYPE', True) == 'wic-img':
   |     d.appendVar('BUILDCHROOT_PREINSTALL',
   |                 d.getVar('BUILDCHROOT_PREINSTALL_WIC', True))

(ref: https://github.com/ilbers/isar/blob/master/meta/recipes-devtools/buildchroot/buildchroot.bb#L45)

The condition would be False for the example provided above and our 
buildchroot missing vital tools such mkdosfs

We probably need to fix one or the other. What are your thoughts?

Thanks
Cedric

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1249 bytes --]

Re: IMAGE_TYPE vs IMAGE_TYPE(S)

[Jan Kiszka]

On 2018-06-01 16:40, cedric_hombourger@mentor.com wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> The documentation suggests that IMAGE_TYPE may be a list of images to be
> built:
> 
>    | The `IMAGE_TYPE` variable contains the list of image types to generate.
> 
> (ref: https://github.com/ilbers/isar/blob/master/doc/user_manual.md#image-type-selection)
> 
> It appears that one could set this to e.g. "ext4-img wic-img" to get
> Isar to generate both an EXT4 image and a WIC image.
> Alright.
> 
> But then how about this code:
> 
>    | if d.getVar('IMAGE_TYPE', True) == 'wic-img':
>    |     d.appendVar('BUILDCHROOT_PREINSTALL',
>    |                 d.getVar('BUILDCHROOT_PREINSTALL_WIC', True))
> 
> (ref: https://github.com/ilbers/isar/blob/master/meta/recipes-devtools/buildchroot/buildchroot.bb#L45)
> 
> The condition would be False for the example provided above and our
> buildchroot missing vital tools such mkdosfs
> 
> We probably need to fix one or the other. What are your thoughts?

While the above would be easy to adjust, it doesn't look to me like as
if the rest of Isar is ready to support true IMAGE_TYPES semantic. I
would suggest to adjust the doc for now so that it stops suggesting
IMAGE_TYPE is like OE's IMAGE_TYPES. Patch welcome.

Thanks for reporting!
Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA IOT SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux

Re: IMAGE_TYPE vs IMAGE_TYPE(S)

[Henning Schild]

Am Mon, 4 Jun 2018 09:16:46 +0200
schrieb "[ext] Jan Kiszka" <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>:

> On 2018-06-01 16:40, cedric_hombourger@mentor.com wrote:
> > Hello!
> > 
> > The documentation suggests that IMAGE_TYPE may be a list of images
> > to be built:
> > 
> >    | The `IMAGE_TYPE` variable contains the list of image types to
> > generate.
> > 
> > (ref: https://github.com/ilbers/isar/blob/master/doc/user_manual.md#image-type-selection)
> > 
> > It appears that one could set this to e.g. "ext4-img wic-img" to get
> > Isar to generate both an EXT4 image and a WIC image.
> > Alright.
> > 
> > But then how about this code:
> > 
> >    | if d.getVar('IMAGE_TYPE', True) == 'wic-img':
> >    |     d.appendVar('BUILDCHROOT_PREINSTALL',
> >    |                 d.getVar('BUILDCHROOT_PREINSTALL_WIC', True))
> > 
> > (ref: https://github.com/ilbers/isar/blob/master/meta/recipes-devtools/buildchroot/buildchroot.bb#L45)
> > 
> > The condition would be False for the example provided above and our
> > buildchroot missing vital tools such mkdosfs
> > 
> > We probably need to fix one or the other. What are your thoughts?  
> 
> While the above would be easy to adjust, it doesn't look to me like as
> if the rest of Isar is ready to support true IMAGE_TYPES semantic. I
> would suggest to adjust the doc for now so that it stops suggesting
> IMAGE_TYPE is like OE's IMAGE_TYPES. Patch welcome.

I agree. If you want another type just derive an image from your
existing one and override the IMAGE_TYPE. IMHO that is cleaner anyways
but would share less temporary results.

Henning

> Thanks for reporting!
> Jan
> 

Re: IMAGE_TYPE vs IMAGE_TYPE(S)

[Claudius Heine]

Hi Cedric,

On 2018-06-01 16:40, cedric_hombourger@mentor.com wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> The documentation suggests that IMAGE_TYPE may be a list of images to be
> built:
> 
>     | The `IMAGE_TYPE` variable contains the list of image types to generate.
> 
> (ref: https://github.com/ilbers/isar/blob/master/doc/user_manual.md#image-type-selection)
> 
> It appears that one could set this to e.g. "ext4-img wic-img" to get Isar
> to generate both an EXT4 image and a WIC image.
> Alright.
> 
> But then how about this code:
> 
>     | if d.getVar('IMAGE_TYPE', True) == 'wic-img':
>     |     d.appendVar('BUILDCHROOT_PREINSTALL',
>     |                 d.getVar('BUILDCHROOT_PREINSTALL_WIC', True))
> 
> (ref: https://github.com/ilbers/isar/blob/master/meta/recipes-devtools/buildchroot/buildchroot.bb#L45)
> 
> The condition would be False for the example provided above and our
> buildchroot missing vital tools such mkdosfs
> 
> We probably need to fix one or the other. What are your thoughts?

I knew that building multiple image wasn't possible, but I wasn't aware 
it was documented otherwise. Thanks for making us aware of this.

Personally, I would like to have the ability to build multiple images, 
because that would put us a bit more on par with OE.

Also I already thought about exactly your quoted part of the code. IMO 
that cries for some refactoring anyway. Maybe we could use the overwrite 
bitbake syntax for this.

I don't know when I will find time to tackle this. There a just so many 
things to do everywhere ;). So up for grabs IMO.

Cheers,
Claudius

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-54 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: ch@denx.de