[OE-core] image.bbclass vs core-image.bbclass

[Paul Eggleton]

On Friday 17 July 2015 05:30:12 Gary Thomas wrote:
> On 2015-07-17 05:14, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > Hi Gary,
> > 
> > On Friday 17 July 2015 04:56:43 Gary Thomas wrote:
> >> Why are some ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMANDs being set in image.bbclass
> >> and others in core-image.bbclass?  If I build an image using only
> >> image.bbclass, I miss the settings from core-image.bbclass (which
> >> is somewhat misnamed IMO since it's heavier than image.bbclass)?
> >> 
> >> Is there some reason not to have all of the ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMANDs
> >> just in image.bbclass alone?
> > 
> > The existence of this class is kind of a legacy from when parts of Poky
> > became OE-Core - originally core-image.bbclass was called
> > poky-image.bbclass, and what was in it was specific to Poky. We had to
> > bring it over though because all of our example images, which we need to
> > have for verification (if nothing else), inherited from it and still do.
> > We've made minor adjustments to core- image.bbclass since then but there
> > are still things in there that are clearly "distro" type definitions that
> > don't make sense for everyone; so far nobody has really stepped up to
> > find any better common items or reasonable defaults (perhaps there aren't
> > any, though I doubt that).
> > 
> > There is a bug open assigned to me to try to sort this out, but to be
> > honest> 
> > I've been struggling with how to best to do it:
> >    https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5424
> > 
> > I'm open to any suggestions, because I do think the dichotomy between
> > these
> > classes ought to be resolved if it can be done practically.
> > 
> > Specifically on the ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMANDs, those do look like they
> > ought to somehow be in image.bbclass if they can be added in a manner
> > that doesn't interfere with people's ability to create images that aren't
> > rootfses.
>
> It seems that many of the ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMANDs in image.bbclass
> already assume that a rootfs is being built.

You could well be right yes.
 
> To me the ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMANDs that are in core-image.bbclass
> don't seem any more invasive than the ones in image.bbclass.  For starters,
> I'd like to see them moved to image.bbclass.  It's also quite strange that
> the read-only-rootfs hook is defined in image.bbclass but only invoked
> from core-image.bbclass??  [That's the one that lead me down this road]
> 
> Any objections to a patch that does that?

None on my end, certainly...

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre