Hi, On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 03:17:26PM +0200, Alexander Dahl wrote: > thanks Roland for addressing this. > > Am Freitag, 5. April 2019, 14:33:24 CEST schrieb Roland Hieber: > > This point came up multiple times in the past and the special handling > > of targetinstall stages lead to confusion when trying to depend on image > > packages. Document it to prevent further confusion in that matter. > > I want to explain why that came up here today and suggest to add some kind of > check to report to the user/developer. > > I had an ordinary image package named image-fpga, creating a uImage from a > binary blob lying somewhere in the BSP and copy that to $(IMAGEDIR). For a > new > version of the platform I also needed to have that uImage in the target's > rootfs (/boot). So I had a look what other packages do (dtc, u-boot) and > decided to turn the image-package into a usual package, create the uImage in > the compile stage and copy the result to $(IMAGEDIR) and optionally to the > target, both in a targetinstall stage. So I thought. Took me three hours, > some > rubberducking and a hint, to realize I had to also rename that package, > because package names starting with image- / IMAGE_ are treated special by > ptxdist. :-/ > > I fear a hint in the docs on that would be easily overlooked, so my question: > is it possible to add some sanity check to ptxdist to warn the developer > about > this?
Hmmm, how would we detect this? I don't think make allows me to check if a specific target is explicitly defined. And packages can use only the default stages. Maybe that <PKG>_IMAGE is defined for image packages? Any other ideas? A lot of stuff is optional so it's not that simple for normal packages. Michael -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ ptxdist mailing list ptxdist@pengutronix.de
