[PATCH] x86-base.inc: Don't add live to IMAGE_FSTYPES, default instead

[PATCH] x86-base.inc: Don't add live to IMAGE_FSTYPES, default instead

[California Sullivan]

Using += makes it difficult to remove. Soft-set with ?= instead.

Signed-off-by: California Sullivan <california.l.sullivan@intel.com>
---
 meta/conf/machine/include/x86-base.inc | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/x86-base.inc b/meta/conf/machine/include/x86-base.inc
index 7365953..bfacdf5 100644
--- a/meta/conf/machine/include/x86-base.inc
+++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/x86-base.inc
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ MACHINE_FEATURES += "screen keyboard pci usbhost ext2 ext3 x86 \
 
 MACHINE_EXTRA_RRECOMMENDS += "kernel-modules"
 
-IMAGE_FSTYPES += "live"
+IMAGE_FSTYPES ?= "live"
 
 KERNEL_IMAGETYPE ?= "bzImage"
 
-- 
2.5.5

Re: [PATCH] x86-base.inc: Don't add live to IMAGE_FSTYPES, default instead

[Christopher Larson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1254 bytes --]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:14 PM, California Sullivan <
california.l.sullivan@intel.com> wrote:

> Using += makes it difficult to remove. Soft-set with ?= instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: California Sullivan <california.l.sullivan@intel.com>
> ---
>  meta/conf/machine/include/x86-base.inc | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/x86-base.inc
> b/meta/conf/machine/include/x86-base.inc
> index 7365953..bfacdf5 100644
> --- a/meta/conf/machine/include/x86-base.inc
> +++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/x86-base.inc
> @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ MACHINE_FEATURES += "screen keyboard pci usbhost ext2
> ext3 x86 \
>
>  MACHINE_EXTRA_RRECOMMENDS += "kernel-modules"
>
> -IMAGE_FSTYPES += "live"
> +IMAGE_FSTYPES ?= "live"
>

I’m assuming you verified that none of the existing machines including this
were depending on the += behavior to add to the current value? And this
would almost certainly result in a different default for any machines that
don’t adjust IMAGE_FSTYPES at all, since it’d be adding to the bitbake.conf
or distro default.
-- 
Christopher Larson
kergoth at gmail dot com
Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus
Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1890 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] x86-base.inc: Don't add live to IMAGE_FSTYPES, default instead

[Cal Sullivan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2049 bytes --]



On 06/21/2017 08:28 AM, Christopher Larson wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:14 PM, California Sullivan 
> <california.l.sullivan@intel.com 
> <mailto:california.l.sullivan@intel.com>> wrote:
>
>     Using += makes it difficult to remove. Soft-set with ?= instead.
>
>     Signed-off-by: California Sullivan
>     <california.l.sullivan@intel.com
>     <mailto:california.l.sullivan@intel.com>>
>     ---
>      meta/conf/machine/include/x86-base.inc | 2 +-
>      1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>     diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/x86-base.inc
>     b/meta/conf/machine/include/x86-base.inc
>     index 7365953..bfacdf5 100644
>     --- a/meta/conf/machine/include/x86-base.inc
>     +++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/x86-base.inc
>     @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ MACHINE_FEATURES += "screen keyboard pci usbhost
>     ext2 ext3 x86 \
>
>      MACHINE_EXTRA_RRECOMMENDS += "kernel-modules"
>
>     -IMAGE_FSTYPES += "live"
>     +IMAGE_FSTYPES ?= "live"
>
>
> I’m assuming you verified that none of the existing machines including 
> this were depending on the += behavior to add to the current value? 
> And this would almost certainly result in a different default for any 
> machines that don’t adjust IMAGE_FSTYPES at all, since it’d be adding 
> to the bitbake.conf or distro default.

I tested genericx86, genericx86-64, intel-corei7-64 and intel-core2-32, 
and their IMAGE_FSTYPES values were the same with and without this patch.

x86-base.inc is the first thing parsed that sets IMAGE_FSTYPES for all 
these machines, and since += is applied immediately its effectively 
setting a default value. A ?= from bitbake.conf for distro conf won't 
actually get applied with or without this patch.

I'm not aware of other machines that inherit x86-base.inc, but I'd think 
it would be the same for them.

Thanks,
Cal

> -- 
> Christopher Larson
> kergoth at gmail dot com
> Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus
> Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4076 bytes --]