Style question on IMAGER_INSTALL

Style question on IMAGER_INSTALL

[Jan Kiszka]

Hi all,

since we have sophisticated imagetypes support with per-type chroots, we
also have more options how to model imager dependencies:

IMAGER_INSTALL += "${GRUB_BOOTLOADER_INSTALL}"

WIC_IMAGER_INSTALL += "${GRUB_BOOTLOADER_INSTALL}"

IMAGER_INSTALL:wic += "${GRUB_BOOTLOADER_INSTALL}"

Which of those should we try to promote today, consistently in code and
documentation (and our own downstream layers)? Not the first one, I
would say, as it potentially injects dependencies into image types that
have no need for it. The second one probably only exists today because
of historic reason, I suppose. Should we move everything to the third
style and start to deprecate WIC_IMAGER_INSTALL?

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Technology
Linux Expert Center

Re: Style question on IMAGER_INSTALL

[Anton Mikanovich]

Hello Jan,

In my opinion IMAGER_INSTALL:wic is more preferable because this kind of 
syntax
is more generic and can be used with any image type.
Maybe we can even deprecate WIC_IMAGER_INSTALL with some warning output to
remove it in later releases.

10/11/2023 10:03, 'Jan Kiszka' via isar-users wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> since we have sophisticated imagetypes support with per-type chroots, we
> also have more options how to model imager dependencies:
>
> IMAGER_INSTALL += "${GRUB_BOOTLOADER_INSTALL}"
>
> WIC_IMAGER_INSTALL += "${GRUB_BOOTLOADER_INSTALL}"
>
> IMAGER_INSTALL:wic += "${GRUB_BOOTLOADER_INSTALL}"
>
> Which of those should we try to promote today, consistently in code and
> documentation (and our own downstream layers)? Not the first one, I
> would say, as it potentially injects dependencies into image types that
> have no need for it. The second one probably only exists today because
> of historic reason, I suppose. Should we move everything to the third
> style and start to deprecate WIC_IMAGER_INSTALL?
>
> Jan
>