public inbox for isar-users@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Henning Schild <henning.schild@siemens.com>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>
Cc: isar-users <isar-users@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Multiconfig woes
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 10:58:09 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180702105809.02040e1f@md1pvb1c.ad001.siemens.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <94817738-b2ca-7747-dc1c-c002d765ce75@web.de>

Am Mon, 2 Jul 2018 10:15:19 +0200
schrieb Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 2018-07-02 10:10, Henning Schild wrote:
> > Am Sun, 1 Jul 2018 20:47:38 +0200 schrieb Jan Kiszka
> > <jan.kiszka@web.de>:
> >   
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> I'm trying to model building different images for different
> >> machines - but for the same architecture. That promises the reuse
> >> of common packages when everything is modeled properly (the
> >> kernel, e.g., will be configured to enable that). But it also
> >> exposes some ugliness.
> >> 
> >> These are my targets so far:
> >> 
> >> multiconfig:machine1-distro:image 
> >> multiconfig:machine2-distro:image
> >> 
> >> Both machines will share DISTRO_ARCH but will have different
> >> MACHINE variables, obviously. The image recipe will be widely
> >> identical, except for some machine-specific packages, selected
> >> by "package-${MACHINE}". So far so good.
> >> 
> >> But now we have the same image target in the same distro-arch
> >> work folder, and that clashes. To resolve that, I also need
> >> change PN in the image recipe to "image-${MACHINE}", and that
> >> results in the following targets:
> >> 
> >> multiconfig:machine1-distro:image-machine1 
> >> multiconfig:machine2-distro:image-machine1
> >> 
> >> Kind of ugly, having the machine ID twice in this target 
> >> specification. Is there any better way to model such a scenario?  
> > 
> > I would try to model that in another image. Just like
> > isar-image-debug extends isar-image-base. If you also need to
> > remove stuff you might need one common include for both.  
> 
> That is exactly what I wrote above: isar-image-machine1,
> isar-image-machine2. But, combined with the config specification, you
> then encode the machine twice.

Well you could use any string in the image-name, as long as they
differ. Using the machine again just makes things more obvious. If you
still want different names there is always PROVIDES, or a recipe that
DEPENDS on both images.

Henning

> Jan
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> iF0EARECAB0WIQTKX4wA9fvIVGYBbICK1KxveuXnFAUCWznfFAAKCRCK1KxveuXn
> FGk8AJ4hBGjuG0M1eJDS/MhLUyFrGPGelQCfWPkkbnD2PuFeFsWjDtr/1mUdNWI=
> =d1Hc
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


      reply	other threads:[~2018-07-02  8:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-07-01 18:47 Jan Kiszka
2018-07-02  8:10 ` Henning Schild
2018-07-02  8:15   ` Jan Kiszka
2018-07-02  8:58     ` Henning Schild [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180702105809.02040e1f@md1pvb1c.ad001.siemens.net \
    --to=henning.schild@siemens.com \
    --cc=isar-users@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=jan.kiszka@web.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox