On Mon, 2017-05-15 at 12:34 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Patrick Ohly <patrick.o...@intel.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-05-15 at 08:50 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > >> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Patrick Ohly <patrick.o...@intel.com> > >> wrote: > >> > Enabling "debug-tweaks" unconditionally, even if it is only in the > >> > local.conf.sample file, runs the risk of that getting used in > >> > production images. > >> > > >> > By checking the per-image IMAGE_MODE, the debug tweaks only get > >> > enabled for images not meant for production. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Patrick Ohly <patrick.o...@intel.com> > >> > --- > >> > meta/conf/local.conf.sample | 5 +++-- > >> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > > >> > diff --git a/meta/conf/local.conf.sample b/meta/conf/local.conf.sample > >> > index 85c5e21..edadbb7 100644 > >> > --- a/meta/conf/local.conf.sample > >> > +++ b/meta/conf/local.conf.sample > >> > @@ -114,8 +114,9 @@ PACKAGE_CLASSES ?= "package_ipk" > >> > # e.g. ssh root access has a blank password > >> > # There are other application targets that can be used here too, see > >> > # meta/classes/image.bbclass and meta/classes/core-image.bbclass for > >> > more details. > >> > -# We default to enabling the debugging tweaks. > >> > -EXTRA_IMAGE_FEATURES ?= "debug-tweaks" > >> > +# We default to enabling the debugging tweaks unless an image is > >> > explicitly > >> > +# requested to be built for production. > >> > +EXTRA_IMAGE_FEATURES ?= "${@ '' if 'production' == > >> > d.getVar('IMAGE_MODE') else 'debug-tweaks'}" > >> > >> is IMAGE_MODE defined per image recipe ? > > > > Conceptually it is, although I guess it might get set globally in > > practice. > > > > The class just defines the empty string (= no specific mode) as ??= > > default. Then a distro's local.conf sample can define a weak ?= default, > > probably "development" (similar to the current practice of enabling > > debug-tweaks in local.conf.sample). Finally, specific image recipes > > (like a core-image-minimal-development.bb which includes > > core-image-minimal.bb) can force a fixed mode with > > IMAGE_MODE_forcevariable = "development". > > People use same distro with two different images for production and > devcelopment and conrols are inserted via IMAGE_FEATURES > with this change once effectively needs two different distros for prod and dev
Why that? The production image recipe "foobar-image-production.bb" can use IMAGE_MODE_forcevariable = "production" and the development image recipe "foobar-image-development.bb" can use IMAGE_MODE_forcevariable = "development". Then whatever the user might configure in local.conf is ignored in favor of the fixed recipe values. If there's a concern about using _forcevariable: that could be addressed by configuring a global IMAGE_MODE_DEFAULT ??= "" and an IMAGE_MODE ??= "${IMAGE_MODE_DEFAULT}" in image-mode.bbclass and changing IMAGE_MODE_DEFAULT in distro or local conf. Then individual recipes can set IMAGE_MODE = "development/production" without having to fall back to _forcevariable. Or do you mean that there's just one image .bb and traditionally IMAGE_FEATURES were changed to switch back and forth? The same works with IMAGE_MODE. The advantage over enabling or disabling dangerous IMAGE_FEATURES is that users of a distro don't need to know about them. They get the guarantee that (for a responsible distro) the dangerous once will not get enabled by default for IMAGE_MODE=development. -- 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. -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core