Would COMPATIBLE_IMAGE make sense?

Would COMPATIBLE_IMAGE make sense?

[Jonas Vautherin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1713 bytes --]

I was thinking about my issue described here [1], and discovered the
variables called COMPATIBLE_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_HOST, which "you can use
to stop recipes from being built for machines (/hosts) with which the
recipes are not compatible". And so I wondered if it would make sense to
add COMPATIBLE_IMAGE, for a similar purpose.

Let me explain my issue: I define different images in different layers (say
`first-project-image` and `second-project-image`), and in each of those
layers I create `.bbappends` to configure some packages. Typically
`hostapd` is used by both images, but with a different config file.

The thing is that when I run `bitbake first-project-image`, because
`second-project-image` is part of my bblayers.conf, then the
hostapd_%.bbappend from `second-project-image` is used and may have an
impact on `first-project-image`, which I don't want. I really want this
bbappend to only affect the image `second-project-image`.

One way I can see to deal with that is to realize that
`first-project-image` and `second-project-image` are two different
projects, and build them from two different BUILDDIRs. The thing I don't
like here is that all the packages are therefore downloaded and built
twice, which seems like a loss of time and space.

That's where I thought about COMPATIBLE_IMAGE. In the hostapd_%.bbappend of
`first-project-image`, I would set "COMPATIBLE_IMAGE =
'first-project-image'", and similarly for "COMPATIBLE_IMAGE =
'second-project-image'". So that I could still share a BUILDDIR between
different projects.

How bad of an idea is that?

Thanks in advance,
Jonas

[1]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/68167244/image-specific-layers

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2057 bytes --]

Re: [yocto] Would COMPATIBLE_IMAGE make sense?

[Frederic Martinsons]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2084 bytes --]

Hello, instead of creating a new variable (don't sure of its possible
usefulness), you can use BBMASK or review dependencies between your layer

PS: I did a similar answer on your stackoverflow question.

On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 at 01:29, Jonas Vautherin <jonas.vautherin@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I was thinking about my issue described here [1], and discovered the
> variables called COMPATIBLE_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_HOST, which "you can use
> to stop recipes from being built for machines (/hosts) with which the
> recipes are not compatible". And so I wondered if it would make sense to
> add COMPATIBLE_IMAGE, for a similar purpose.
>
> Let me explain my issue: I define different images in different layers
> (say `first-project-image` and `second-project-image`), and in each of
> those layers I create `.bbappends` to configure some packages. Typically
> `hostapd` is used by both images, but with a different config file.
>
> The thing is that when I run `bitbake first-project-image`, because
> `second-project-image` is part of my bblayers.conf, then the
> hostapd_%.bbappend from `second-project-image` is used and may have an
> impact on `first-project-image`, which I don't want. I really want this
> bbappend to only affect the image `second-project-image`.
>
> One way I can see to deal with that is to realize that
> `first-project-image` and `second-project-image` are two different
> projects, and build them from two different BUILDDIRs. The thing I don't
> like here is that all the packages are therefore downloaded and built
> twice, which seems like a loss of time and space.
>
> That's where I thought about COMPATIBLE_IMAGE. In the hostapd_%.bbappend
> of `first-project-image`, I would set "COMPATIBLE_IMAGE =
> 'first-project-image'", and similarly for "COMPATIBLE_IMAGE =
> 'second-project-image'". So that I could still share a BUILDDIR between
> different projects.
>
> How bad of an idea is that?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Jonas
>
> [1]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/68167244/image-specific-layers
>
> 
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2694 bytes --]

Re: [yocto] Would COMPATIBLE_IMAGE make sense?

[Josef Holzmayr]

Howdy!

Am 29.06.2021 um 01:28 schrieb Jonas Vautherin:
> I was thinking about my issue described here [1], and discovered the 
> variables called COMPATIBLE_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_HOST, which "you can 
> use to stop recipes from being built for machines (/hosts) with which 
> the recipes are not compatible". And so I wondered if it would make 
> sense to add COMPATIBLE_IMAGE, for a similar purpose.
> 
> Let me explain my issue: I define different images in different layers 
> (say `first-project-image` and `second-project-image`), and in each of 
> those layers I create `.bbappends` to configure some packages. Typically 
> `hostapd` is used by both images, but with a different config file.
> 
> The thing is that when I run `bitbake first-project-image`, because 
> `second-project-image` is part of my bblayers.conf, then the 
> hostapd_%.bbappend from `second-project-image` is used and may have an 
> impact on `first-project-image`, which I don't want. I really want this 
> bbappend to only affect the image `second-project-image`.
> 
> One way I can see to deal with that is to realize that 
> `first-project-image` and `second-project-image` are two different 
> projects, and build them from two different BUILDDIRs. The thing I don't 
> like here is that all the packages are therefore downloaded and built 
> twice, which seems like a loss of time and space.
> 
> That's where I thought about COMPATIBLE_IMAGE. In the hostapd_%.bbappend 
> of `first-project-image`, I would set "COMPATIBLE_IMAGE = 
> 'first-project-image'", and similarly for "COMPATIBLE_IMAGE = 
> 'second-project-image'". So that I could still share a BUILDDIR between 
> different projects.

Yocto chant #1 applies: "Recipe data is local, configuration data is 
global." Means: the recipe does not see at all which image it is being 
built for. So it also can't react to it - you can't check a variable 
against something you do not even see.

> How bad of an idea is that?

It just doesn't work. If that counts as "bad" is left for you to decide :)

What you actually might use is using different DISTROs for the images, 
because that actually what they mean to do: you change the ABI/API of 
the image. And you can also define a base DISTRO and COMPATIBLE_DISTRO 
derivatives, so its all there already. It just cannot be triggered from 
the image, because, well.. see first pragraph of the answer.

Greetz

> Thanks in advance,
> Jonas
> 
> [1]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/68167244/image-specific-layers 
> <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/68167244/image-specific-layers>
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [yocto] Would COMPATIBLE_IMAGE make sense?

[Erik Boto]

On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 8:41 AM Josef Holzmayr
<jester@theyoctojester.info> wrote:
>
> Howdy!
>
> Am 29.06.2021 um 01:28 schrieb Jonas Vautherin:
> > I was thinking about my issue described here [1], and discovered the
> > variables called COMPATIBLE_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_HOST, which "you can
> > use to stop recipes from being built for machines (/hosts) with which
> > the recipes are not compatible". And so I wondered if it would make
> > sense to add COMPATIBLE_IMAGE, for a similar purpose.
> >
> > Let me explain my issue: I define different images in different layers
> > (say `first-project-image` and `second-project-image`), and in each of
> > those layers I create `.bbappends` to configure some packages. Typically
> > `hostapd` is used by both images, but with a different config file.
> >
> > The thing is that when I run `bitbake first-project-image`, because
> > `second-project-image` is part of my bblayers.conf, then the
> > hostapd_%.bbappend from `second-project-image` is used and may have an
> > impact on `first-project-image`, which I don't want. I really want this
> > bbappend to only affect the image `second-project-image`.
> >
> > One way I can see to deal with that is to realize that
> > `first-project-image` and `second-project-image` are two different
> > projects, and build them from two different BUILDDIRs. The thing I don't
> > like here is that all the packages are therefore downloaded and built
> > twice, which seems like a loss of time and space.
> >
> > That's where I thought about COMPATIBLE_IMAGE. In the hostapd_%.bbappend
> > of `first-project-image`, I would set "COMPATIBLE_IMAGE =
> > 'first-project-image'", and similarly for "COMPATIBLE_IMAGE =
> > 'second-project-image'". So that I could still share a BUILDDIR between
> > different projects.
>
> Yocto chant #1 applies: "Recipe data is local, configuration data is
> global." Means: the recipe does not see at all which image it is being
> built for. So it also can't react to it - you can't check a variable
> against something you do not even see.
>
> > How bad of an idea is that?
>
> It just doesn't work. If that counts as "bad" is left for you to decide :)
>
> What you actually might use is using different DISTROs for the images,
> because that actually what they mean to do: you change the ABI/API of
> the image. And you can also define a base DISTRO and COMPATIBLE_DISTRO
> derivatives, so its all there already. It just cannot be triggered from
> the image, because, well.. see first pragraph of the answer.

I agree with everything Josef said, but just wanted to add that if
it's just different
configurations needed for different images it might be easier to just
put the configs
into separate packages and install the right package in the respective image.

So configuration for first-project-image goes into <somepackage>-foo, and the
config for second-project-image goes into <somepackage>-bar. Then the image
would add the correct configuration package.

This only works for the simple cases, and if you really need to change the way
a package is built the DISTRO way is better.

Erik

>
> Greetz
>
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Jonas
> >
> > [1]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/68167244/image-specific-layers
> > <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/68167244/image-specific-layers>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> 
>

Re: [yocto] Would COMPATIBLE_IMAGE make sense?

[Bruce Ashfield]

On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 2:41 AM Josef Holzmayr
<jester@theyoctojester.info> wrote:
>
> Howdy!
>
> Am 29.06.2021 um 01:28 schrieb Jonas Vautherin:
> > I was thinking about my issue described here [1], and discovered the
> > variables called COMPATIBLE_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_HOST, which "you can
> > use to stop recipes from being built for machines (/hosts) with which
> > the recipes are not compatible". And so I wondered if it would make
> > sense to add COMPATIBLE_IMAGE, for a similar purpose.
> >
> > Let me explain my issue: I define different images in different layers
> > (say `first-project-image` and `second-project-image`), and in each of
> > those layers I create `.bbappends` to configure some packages. Typically
> > `hostapd` is used by both images, but with a different config file.
> >
> > The thing is that when I run `bitbake first-project-image`, because
> > `second-project-image` is part of my bblayers.conf, then the
> > hostapd_%.bbappend from `second-project-image` is used and may have an
> > impact on `first-project-image`, which I don't want. I really want this
> > bbappend to only affect the image `second-project-image`.
> >
> > One way I can see to deal with that is to realize that
> > `first-project-image` and `second-project-image` are two different
> > projects, and build them from two different BUILDDIRs. The thing I don't
> > like here is that all the packages are therefore downloaded and built
> > twice, which seems like a loss of time and space.
> >
> > That's where I thought about COMPATIBLE_IMAGE. In the hostapd_%.bbappend
> > of `first-project-image`, I would set "COMPATIBLE_IMAGE =
> > 'first-project-image'", and similarly for "COMPATIBLE_IMAGE =
> > 'second-project-image'". So that I could still share a BUILDDIR between
> > different projects.
>
> Yocto chant #1 applies: "Recipe data is local, configuration data is
> global." Means: the recipe does not see at all which image it is being
> built for. So it also can't react to it - you can't check a variable
> against something you do not even see.
>
> > How bad of an idea is that?
>
> It just doesn't work. If that counts as "bad" is left for you to decide :)
>
> What you actually might use is using different DISTROs for the images,
> because that actually what they mean to do: you change the ABI/API of
> the image. And you can also define a base DISTRO and COMPATIBLE_DISTRO
> derivatives, so its all there already. It just cannot be triggered from
> the image, because, well.. see first pragraph of the answer.

I was also going to suggest distros.

And also, if the concern really is about builds reusing downloads,
etc, then by all means configure those different distro builds to
share download and sstate directories.

Bruce

>
> Greetz
>
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Jonas
> >
> > [1]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/68167244/image-specific-layers
> > <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/68167244/image-specific-layers>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> 
>


-- 
- Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end
- "Use the force Harry" - Gandalf, Star Trek II

Re: [yocto] Would COMPATIBLE_IMAGE make sense?

[Jonas Vautherin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3638 bytes --]

Thanks a lot for the answers, that's really helpful!

Seems like I should have a closer look at the distros.
I'll need some time to test it, I'll update here when that is done!

On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 1:52 PM Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 2:41 AM Josef Holzmayr
> <jester@theyoctojester.info> wrote:
> >
> > Howdy!
> >
> > Am 29.06.2021 um 01:28 schrieb Jonas Vautherin:
> > > I was thinking about my issue described here [1], and discovered the
> > > variables called COMPATIBLE_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_HOST, which "you can
> > > use to stop recipes from being built for machines (/hosts) with which
> > > the recipes are not compatible". And so I wondered if it would make
> > > sense to add COMPATIBLE_IMAGE, for a similar purpose.
> > >
> > > Let me explain my issue: I define different images in different layers
> > > (say `first-project-image` and `second-project-image`), and in each of
> > > those layers I create `.bbappends` to configure some packages.
> Typically
> > > `hostapd` is used by both images, but with a different config file.
> > >
> > > The thing is that when I run `bitbake first-project-image`, because
> > > `second-project-image` is part of my bblayers.conf, then the
> > > hostapd_%.bbappend from `second-project-image` is used and may have an
> > > impact on `first-project-image`, which I don't want. I really want this
> > > bbappend to only affect the image `second-project-image`.
> > >
> > > One way I can see to deal with that is to realize that
> > > `first-project-image` and `second-project-image` are two different
> > > projects, and build them from two different BUILDDIRs. The thing I
> don't
> > > like here is that all the packages are therefore downloaded and built
> > > twice, which seems like a loss of time and space.
> > >
> > > That's where I thought about COMPATIBLE_IMAGE. In the
> hostapd_%.bbappend
> > > of `first-project-image`, I would set "COMPATIBLE_IMAGE =
> > > 'first-project-image'", and similarly for "COMPATIBLE_IMAGE =
> > > 'second-project-image'". So that I could still share a BUILDDIR between
> > > different projects.
> >
> > Yocto chant #1 applies: "Recipe data is local, configuration data is
> > global." Means: the recipe does not see at all which image it is being
> > built for. So it also can't react to it - you can't check a variable
> > against something you do not even see.
> >
> > > How bad of an idea is that?
> >
> > It just doesn't work. If that counts as "bad" is left for you to decide
> :)
> >
> > What you actually might use is using different DISTROs for the images,
> > because that actually what they mean to do: you change the ABI/API of
> > the image. And you can also define a base DISTRO and COMPATIBLE_DISTRO
> > derivatives, so its all there already. It just cannot be triggered from
> > the image, because, well.. see first pragraph of the answer.
>
> I was also going to suggest distros.
>
> And also, if the concern really is about builds reusing downloads,
> etc, then by all means configure those different distro builds to
> share download and sstate directories.
>
> Bruce
>
> >
> > Greetz
> >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > > Jonas
> > >
> > > [1]:
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/68167244/image-specific-layers
> > > <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/68167244/image-specific-layers>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> - Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
> thee at its end
> - "Use the force Harry" - Gandalf, Star Trek II
>
> 
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4836 bytes --]