On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 17:02 +0300, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > On 05/16/2017 04:47 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > > Then why is not already done like that in practice? Is it just because > > OE-core and Poky set such a bad precedence with teaching developers to > > add EXTRA_IMAGE_FEATURES ?= "debug-tweaks" to make the images usable, > > and then that approach gets copied? > > It is done like that already, it's just not very consistent from what I > can see. For example, core-image-sato-dev.bb: > ============= > require core-image-sato.bb > > DESCRIPTION = "Image with Sato for development work. It includes > everything \ > within core-image-sato plus a native toolchain, application development > and \ > testing libraries, profiling and debug symbols." > > IMAGE_FEATURES += "dev-pkgs" > =============
That's different. Here an image recipe specifies what it is meant to *contain*, not how it is meant to *behave*. One would need core-image-sato-dev-production.bb (no debug-tweaks, dev-pkgs), core-image-sato-dev-debug.bb (debug-tweaks, dev-pkgs), core-image-sato-production.bb (no debug-tweaks, no dev-pkgs), core-image-sato-debug.bb (debug-tweaks, no dev-pkgs). Allowing EXTRA_IMAGE_FEATURES in local.conf.sample avoids that. > I'm not a big fan of placing INHERIT into local.conf either, by the way. > I believe in functional programming principles, and this goes directly > against them. It makes sense to me when the functionality is orthogonal to the content, like enabling buildhistory. -- 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