couple questions about IMAGE_BASENAME usage

couple questions about IMAGE_BASENAME usage

[Robert P. J. Day]

  first, given that the default value of IMAGE_BASENAME is simply the
package name, then i'm assuming that things like this in
core-image-tiny-initramfs.bb:

  export IMAGE_BASENAME = "core-image-tiny-initramfs"

are superfluous, yes?

  also, i'm curious about the difference between these two image
recipes:

core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb:export IMAGE_BASENAME = "${MLPREFIX}core-image-minimal-initramfs"
core-image-tiny-initramfs.bb:export IMAGE_BASENAME = "core-image-tiny-initramfs"

why does the first accommodate the multilib prefix MLPREFIX, while the
second does not?

rday

Re: [OE-core] couple questions about IMAGE_BASENAME usage

[Alejandro Hernandez Samaniego]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1395 bytes --]

Hey Robert

On 4/2/2021 12:13 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>    first, given that the default value of IMAGE_BASENAME is simply the
> package name, then i'm assuming that things like this in
> core-image-tiny-initramfs.bb:
>
>    export IMAGE_BASENAME = "core-image-tiny-initramfs"
>
> are superfluous, yes?

In some way it is (at least the definition), although passing the export 
keyword causes a different behavior,

you can look this up on the Bitbake manual, section Exporting Variables 
To The Environment.

>
>    also, i'm curious about the difference between these two image
> recipes:
>
> core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb:export IMAGE_BASENAME = "${MLPREFIX}core-image-minimal-initramfs"
> core-image-tiny-initramfs.bb:export IMAGE_BASENAME = "core-image-tiny-initramfs"
>
> why does the first accommodate the multilib prefix MLPREFIX, while the
> second does not?

The recipe for core-image-tiny-initramfs is based on 
core-image-minimal-initramfs,

going throught the git log  it seems that a bug was found and it was 
only fixed for

core-image-minimal-initramfs and not for the tiny one at e18b7e77ed7 , I 
encourage

you to send patches for these kind of findings, after doing some digging 
if something

is still not making sense, then theres a chance it needs to be fixed 
(like tihs one)


Cheers,

Alejandro

>
> rday
>
> 
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2361 bytes --]

Re: [OE-core] couple questions about IMAGE_BASENAME usage

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Sun, 4 Apr 2021, Alejandro Hernandez Samaniego wrote:

> On 4/2/2021 12:13 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
>   also, i'm curious about the difference between these two image
> recipes:
>
> core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb:export IMAGE_BASENAME = "${MLPREFIX}core-image-minimal-initramfs"
> core-image-tiny-initramfs.bb:export IMAGE_BASENAME = "core-image-tiny-initramfs"
>
> why does the first accommodate the multilib prefix MLPREFIX, while
> the second does not?
>
> The recipe for core-image-tiny-initramfs is based on
> core-image-minimal-initramfs, going throught the git log it seems
> that a bug was found and it was only fixed for
> core-image-minimal-initramfs and not for the tiny one at
> e18b7e77ed7, I encourage you to send patches for these kind of
> findings, after doing some digging if something is still not making
> sense, then theres a chance it needs to be fixed (like tihs one)

  mucking around with git log and blame, i note that MLPREFIX was
added to that first image along with this line in image-live.bbclass:

INITRD_IMAGE_LIVE ?= "${MLPREFIX}core-image-minimal-initramfs"

  so my initial reaction was to simply add ${MLPREFIX} to the second
image mentioned above, but now i'm not so sure -- i'm open to
suggestions.

rday