* sysroots, wic-tools and rm_work
@ 2017-01-26 15:39 Kristian Amlie
2017-01-27 12:05 ` Patrick Ohly
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Kristian Amlie @ 2017-01-26 15:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: OE-core, Ed Bartosh, Richard Purdie
It seems like wic doesn't work together with rm_work, because of its
dependency on wic-tools. The reason is that building wic-tools will
result in rm_work removing the very sysroot that wic needs.
It's easy to fix locally by adding
RM_WORK_EXCLUDE = "wic-tools"
however, I think this deserves a more permanent fix, and I'm not sure
which approach is best. We could assign directly to that variable, but I
would assume that anyone that uses it will assign directly to it, and
breaking wic all over a again. Or perhaps we could add an exception
directly to rm_work.bbclass? What's best practice in a case like this?
--
Kristian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: sysroots, wic-tools and rm_work
2017-01-26 15:39 sysroots, wic-tools and rm_work Kristian Amlie
@ 2017-01-27 12:05 ` Patrick Ohly
2017-01-27 12:37 ` Kristian Amlie
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Ohly @ 2017-01-27 12:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kristian Amlie; +Cc: OE-core
On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 16:39 +0100, Kristian Amlie wrote:
> It seems like wic doesn't work together with rm_work, because of its
> dependency on wic-tools. The reason is that building wic-tools will
> result in rm_work removing the very sysroot that wic needs.
>
> It's easy to fix locally by adding
>
> RM_WORK_EXCLUDE = "wic-tools"
>
> however, I think this deserves a more permanent fix, and I'm not sure
> which approach is best.
wic-tools.bb can have:
RM_WORK_EXCLUDE += "${PN}"
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: sysroots, wic-tools and rm_work
2017-01-27 12:05 ` Patrick Ohly
@ 2017-01-27 12:37 ` Kristian Amlie
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Kristian Amlie @ 2017-01-27 12:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick Ohly; +Cc: OE-core
On 27/01/17 13:05, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 16:39 +0100, Kristian Amlie wrote:
>> It seems like wic doesn't work together with rm_work, because of its
>> dependency on wic-tools. The reason is that building wic-tools will
>> result in rm_work removing the very sysroot that wic needs.
>>
>> It's easy to fix locally by adding
>>
>> RM_WORK_EXCLUDE = "wic-tools"
>>
>> however, I think this deserves a more permanent fix, and I'm not sure
>> which approach is best.
>
> wic-tools.bb can have:
> RM_WORK_EXCLUDE += "${PN}"
Ah yes, it can be local to the recipe, I didn't think about that. I'll
post a patch shortly.
--
Kristian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-01-27 12:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-01-26 15:39 sysroots, wic-tools and rm_work Kristian Amlie
2017-01-27 12:05 ` Patrick Ohly
2017-01-27 12:37 ` Kristian Amlie
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.