[OE-core] [PATCH 1/5] RFC image_types.bbclass: add image size limit for tar image type

[richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org]

On Thu, 2018-11-29 at 14:17 +0000, Mikko.Rapeli at bmw.de wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 02:04:14PM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-11-29 at 14:21 +0200, Mikko Rapeli wrote:
> > > If IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE_LIMIT is defined in image configuration,
> > > then
> > > build will fail if for tar image type the uncompressed tar ball
> > > size
> > > exceeds the value, as reported by 'du -ks'.
> > > 
> > > This check could be extended to other image types as well.
> > > 
> > > There already exists a check with IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE variable
> > > but I could not figure out how to actually use it. It does
> > > some quite complex overhead calculations which did not seem
> > > to work for me on sumo.
> > > 
> > > When the image size is exceeded, build fails like this:
> > > 
> > > ERROR: image-1.0-r0 do_image_tar: Image size 170712 of
> > > /home/builder/src/base/build/tmp/work/linux/image/1.0-r0/deploy-
> > > image-complete/image.rootfs.tar reported by 'du -ks' is larger
> > > than
> > > limit IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE_LIMIT 170000
> > 
> > What about IMAGE_ROOTFS_MAXSIZE?
> > 
> > I think IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE is about adding extra space to the image,
> > not
> > limiting its size...
> 
> Yea, forgot to mention that I tried that too but got inconsisten
> results.
> I know it's bad but it was easier for me to add this new test than to
> figure out what's wrong with current yocto image size checks. Hence
> RFC.

How would we document this new variable? Recommend users to set both
and hope for the best? :)

Seriously, we need one good way of doing this which works. That means
either you debug the IMAGE_ROOTFS_MAXSIZE option or at least file a bug
with as much information as you can about the problems you're seeing...

Cheers,

Richard