[oe] [OE-core] [PATCH] core-image.bbclass: Reformat definition of CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL

[Khem Raj]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Otavio Salvador
<otavio at ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> +OE-Core
>
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday at crashcourse.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Reformat the assignment to CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL to be more
>> intuitively obvious.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday at crashcourse.ca>
>>
>> ---
>>
>>   compile and run-time tested, building a core-image-minimal for
>> qemuarm.
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/classes/core-image.bbclass b/meta/classes/core-image.bbclass
>> index 1b36cba..d2b9d69 100644
>> --- a/meta/classes/core-image.bbclass
>> +++ b/meta/classes/core-image.bbclass
>> @@ -59,13 +59,11 @@ MACHINE_HWCODECS ??= ""
>>  CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL = '\
>>      packagegroup-core-boot \
>>      packagegroup-base-extended \
>> -    \
>> -    ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL} \
>>      '
>>
>>  CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= ""
>>
>> -IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL}"
>> +IMAGE_INSTALL ?= "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL} ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL}"
>
> For me, more intuitively would be:
>
> CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL ?= ...

weak assignment here would mean overridable base install which is not
the intention. we want a working base image when inheriting core-image

>
> IMAGE_INSTALL += "${CORE_IMAGE_BASE_INSTALL} ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL}"
>
> So IMAGE_INSTALL += "foo" in local.conf works as expected by new users.

doesnt patch has same change ?

>
> --
> Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
> http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
> Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core