Re: [PATCH 1/2] meta-isar: Separate images per MACHINE

[Baurzhan Ismagulov <ibr@radix50.net>]

Hi all,

I ask everyone to use this list for constructive discussion for the benefit of
the project. Communication, especially written one, can be frustrating, but it
always works when people treat each other with respect.

With kind regards,
Baurzhan.


On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 11:25:06AM +0100, Claudius Heine wrote:
> Hi Maxim,
> 
> Quoting Maxim Yu. Osipov (2019-03-15 10:02:48)
> [...]
> > >>> diff --git a/meta-isar/conf/conf-notes.txt 
> > >>> b/meta-isar/conf/conf-notes.txt
> > >>> index 87bd2dc..84049e1 100644
> > >>> --- a/meta-isar/conf/conf-notes.txt
> > >>> +++ b/meta-isar/conf/conf-notes.txt
> > >>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > >>> � Common targets are:
> > >>> -��� multiconfig:qemuarm-stretch:isar-image-base
> > >>> -��� multiconfig:qemuamd64-stretch:isar-image-base
> > >>> -��� multiconfig:rpi-jessie:isar-image-base
> > >>> +��� multiconfig:qemuarm-stretch:isar-image-base-qemuarm
> > >>> +��� multiconfig:qemuamd64-stretch:isar-image-base-qemuamd64
> > >>> +��� multiconfig:rpi-jessie:isar-image-base-rpi
> > > 
> > > I am not a big fan of having to specify the machine when building a image.
> > > 
> > > Would it be possible to have virtual recipes?
> > > 
> > > IMO all isar-image-base-* would provide a isar-image-base.
> > 
> > Not sure that I got your point.
> > OK, let's add two line to isar-image-base.bb
> > 
> > PF .= "-${MACHINE}"
> > PROVIDES += "isar-image-base"
> 
> Well that is not what my initial suggestion was.
> 
> If you want to use my initial suggestion and use PROVIDES then of course
> you will have to do something like this:
> 
>   PN .= "-${MACHINE}"
>   PROVIDES += "isar-image-base"
> 
> If you use my latest suggestion then you would have something like this:
> 
>   PF .= "-${MACHINE}"
>   WORKDIR .= "-${MACHINE}"
> 
> If you sort of start combining my code then this will not work of
> course.
> 
> Please investigate yourself what code you write does. I don't provide copy
> paste stuff in reviews, just ideas. You might be lucky if they just work by
> copy-pasting, but you might not be and have to think a bit yourself to
> make it work. If I would do that, then I would have written the patch
> myself.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > >>> --- a/scripts/start_vm
> > >>> +++ b/scripts/start_vm
> > >>> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
> > >>> � #!/bin/sh
> > >>> � #
> > >>> � # This software is a part of ISAR.
> > >>> -# Copyright (C) 2015-2017 ilbers GmbH
> > >>> +# Copyright (C) 2015-2019 ilbers GmbH
> > >>> � set -e
> > >>> @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ show_help() {
> > >>> ����� echo "������������������������� Supported: arm, i386, amd64, 
> > >>> arm64."
> > >>> ����� echo "��� -b, --build BUILD���� set path to build directory."
> > >>> ����� echo "��� -d, --distro DISTRO�� set isar Debian distribution."
> > >>> -��� echo "������������������������� Supported: jessie, stretch."
> > >>> +��� echo "������������������������� Supported: jessie, stretch, buster"
> > > 
> > > Well that change together with the copyright update should be moved in a 
> > > different patch. It has nothing to do with 'Separate images per MACHINE' 
> > > IMO.
> > 
> > Well...formally you are right, but in my opinion such "copyright" 
> > commits just litter the patch queue.
> 
> Having unrelated changes in a commit will make is harder to review, and
> litter the git history/blame stuff. So while it might be a small
> inconveniece short term (by needing to create and submitt more than one
> patch in a queue) it makes the history cleaner for the whole future.
> 
> Cheers,
> Claudius