[OE-core] [PATCH] image.bbclass: Ensure IMAGE_FSTYPES is fully evaluated before live/live logic

[Richard Purdie]

On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 10:16 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 02:40:44PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-06-26 at 08:27 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > Incase we have overrides applied to IMAGE_FSTYPES we need to make sure
> > > that we evaluate it fully before performing the live and vmdk logic
> > > checks.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <tom.rini at gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  meta/classes/image.bbclass | 9 +++++----
> > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/meta/classes/image.bbclass b/meta/classes/image.bbclass
> > > index 79de5a2..ccfa1b1 100644
> > > --- a/meta/classes/image.bbclass
> > > +++ b/meta/classes/image.bbclass
> > > @@ -78,10 +78,11 @@ do_rootfs[vardeps] += "BAD_RECOMMENDATIONS NO_RECOMMENDATIONS"
> > >  
> > >  do_build[depends] += "virtual/kernel:do_deploy"
> > >  
> > > +EVALED_IMAGE_FSTYPES := "${IMAGE_FSTYPES}"
> > >  def build_live(d):
> > > -    if base_contains("IMAGE_FSTYPES", "live", "live", "0", d) == "0": # live is not set but hob might set iso or hddimg
> > > -        d.setVar('NOISO', base_contains('IMAGE_FSTYPES', "iso", "0", "1", d))
> > > -        d.setVar('NOHDD', base_contains('IMAGE_FSTYPES', "hddimg", "0", "1", d))
> > > +    if base_contains("EVALED_IMAGE_FSTYPES", "live", "live", "0", d) == "0": # live is not set but hob might set iso or hddimg
> > > +        d.setVar('NOISO', base_contains('EVALED_IMAGE_FSTYPES', "iso", "0", "1", d))
> > > +        d.setVar('NOHDD', base_contains('EVALED_IMAGE_FSTYPES', "hddimg", "0", "1", d))
> > >          if d.getVar('NOISO', True) == "0" or d.getVar('NOHDD', True) == "0":
> > >              return "image-live"
> > >          return ""
> > 
> > The trouble is this doesn't add up. 
> > 
> > EVALED_IMAGE_FSTYPES := "${IMAGE_FSTYPES}"
> > 
> > basically sets EVALED_... to the expanded value of IMAGE_FSTYPES
> > 
> > base_contains() also expands the variable its passed.
> > 
> > I'm a little concerned as to why those two expansions of the same thing
> > should result in something different.
> 
> Well, they're happening at different parts in the parse.  The vmdk
> example is clearer I think since it's not another "big" python function.
> 
> > From your later explaination, it would appear the use of the override is
> > causing problems but I don't understand how immediate expansion would
> > work around that :/.
> > 
> > So before this merges, more investigation is needed as there is
> > something not adding up...
> 
> Well, I think the high level answer is that no, we aren't applying
> OVERRIDES at the point when we're parsing classes still rather than a
> specific task.  Adding an immediate eval at this level does force things
> and then we see what we're supposed to.  My gut feeling here is that if
> we poke deeply enough at base_contains we'll see that we aren't passing
> along the expand flag when we thought we were.

I wondered about that but I did already check and:

http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky/tree/bitbake/lib/bb/utils.py

def contains(variable, checkvalues, truevalue, falsevalue, d):
    val = d.getVar(variable, True)

so it is being expanded afaict...

Cheers,

Richard