From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 482A0E00C44; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 09:26:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * 0.5 RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM RBL: SORBS: sender is a spam source * [212.227.126.130 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no * trust * [212.227.126.130 listed in list.dnswl.org] * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] Received: from mout.kundenserver.de (mout.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.130]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7154DE00928 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 09:26:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oxbsltgw13.schlund.de ([172.19.249.30]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue007 [212.227.15.163]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MLmVT-1e9Syx1l9X-000utx; Thu, 02 Nov 2017 17:26:48 +0100 Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 16:26:46 +0000 (GMT) From: Colin Helliwell To: yocto@yoctoproject.org, Alexander Kanavin Message-ID: <1752415703.224739.1509640006960@email.1and1.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <214703149.187142.1509606640635@email.1and1.co.uk> References: <06ee01d35330$8d4102e0$a7c308a0$@ln-systems.com> <51b14605-1467-71a5-d84a-e45f73796e60@linux.intel.com> <214703149.187142.1509606640635@email.1and1.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 Importance: Medium X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.8.3-Rev36 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:y3HQpaYSlBUcVy+KiJvddEp9dr2J1IbXhdsH/r79kZe171Mwp0a cO6WzxC0MEUtWGGZHs4uZU/05klaV0yuLAaJvxLWkoarKMIPOAfDYWGNuzOCKkyQLXsh8iA JmmQmynRh16pDWLRRxEAb2UVGASdLfgi6afiisyIuHu+NooL6n3ua1V9ZIQn8zzth0S89JL sd29TH+0x1SsjS3lu4ofQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:vT8BY/hy6iE=:YrjMcNGyK3/L++Y3REHAsS 1xgOymc2FdwX+zGfjU5QUN6gDfh3tA9yYRULTN2zR9aMQ2J8JIWFKMtUP7BK7sE2kAVMslxP/ CnCy/e28Vwo4UshbTqKRhmCwkMULUwFcE8cszNfEIdteBLivX3mz6skgJmSZXBo6IsI2M1OXx g2jxcK/coohnt2vYuU55yRmwyH5gkwBxUJ6qC9Up8KRGN3hgkJ3HDeLTcTNo16kw8i+cD8BEP AzCsPLdvvDnHrPAiVIin56ZmglTO8hWz3wyaeyeG7PMWmXJ8kk0GHteKnyzp3094CL3p1KXg/ 8S6KitbwFiwQ/FZx03CgMTfByu6DZN7zeh26wJrACdaNKytwZuJdawszmK6OVB50/Xuh7CPpi HvoIjMR/EfWSBwh2UcUIPqTYscH0FQiQxasgxWBGZGchsAMM2xHuUXLjf4nVqSszZ6U6aFja3 3b6czdy63SrmTDeBuvdabbwxAe5h4zGtfig8qNuhhNBm3SsM4R0AdRlBnmrxhCXXHfhCkxpRl zvx9FWCoLN96jOAJdL7RPdf+1ajP/jNt2NffnOop9cDQCb8OuYCKct2xTbV6ZHBUHBh2ccGoV NK4WkOT2WdBwsQqTARRcjW48zXcl/Su4GLCPcAtF7N8OwuUEkNEqBWpxWTi9+Mh2LoZuTaAis AsEg5IjJtBmNzoIILHGuNFIwmSeueckUnUTY4ywuv7OC9xsqsU3tO2pVqe9Y5dLxBkxH0LkkB MTyCh/G89c5WAAaul0tdoIkE5WexuZonzfzjSUtPBADvwlH6ashQPM7LV1A= Subject: Re: Slightly varying builds X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list Reply-To: Colin Helliwell List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 16:26:54 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On 02 November 2017 at 07:10 Colin Helliwell wrote: >=20 > > On 01 November 2017 at 17:04 Alexander Kanavin wrote: > >=20 > > On 11/01/2017 06:43 PM, colin.helliwell@ln-systems.com wrote: > >=20 > > > I need to build two slightly varying versions of our Yocto build =E2= =80=93 one > > > for the production units and one for development. > > >=20 > > > They differ in only a few ways =E2=80=93 the kernel and apps are the = same. But > > > one has Dropbear, whilst the other doesn=E2=80=99t; and the U-Boot co= nfigs & > > > patches are different. > > >=20 > > > I=E2=80=99m wondering where to do the separation =E2=80=93 image, dis= tro, conf=E2=80=A6? > > >=20 > > > Any thoughts on the cleanest way to split and/or inherit them would b= e > > > appreciated. > >=20 > > Image, certainly. Put the common bits into an include, and specific bit= s > > into image-production|development.bb files. Poky has plenty of examples > > for this. >=20 > Rootfs changes I can certainly do with different image recipes. >=20 > Am I right though in thinking that - because they'll have different varia= nts of u-boot - I'll need to use separate build directories for each? (nb -= I'm using signed FIT image, so the u-boot bin gets modified as part of the= kernel building) > -- Following on from this, I'm trying to be able to build my two versions of u= -boot, in the *same* build directory. I'm not sure if this is possible, but I figured it might be: since u-boot d= oesn't get put into the rootfs (?), I would ideally be able to build both a= nd just pull down from tmp/deploy/images/.... the image that I want to prog= ram into a particular unit. I've pushed common stuff into .inc file(s), and have two recipes which set = different 'PROVIDES' values. However, even after a cleanall on both recipes, bitbaking the second one th= rows an error "The recipe u-boot-mymachine-dev is trying to install files i= nto a shared area when those files already exist". Is it possible to do what I'm trying to do....? Ta