On Fri, 9 Mar 2012, Jeremy Puhlman wrote: ... snip ... > Some images(not neccisarily in oe-core) set IMAGE_INSTALL explictly > hard, which means you can add what ever you want in your > local.conf and it will get replaced with what is in the recipe. If the > recipe sets IMAGE_INSTALL soft, then what happens is when your > local.conf is read, the value should start out as not defined, so when > you += to the value you get what ever you set as the only value. > Later on when things like core-image attempt to set via =? it sees that > it is already set and should break the image since it doesn't add > what it thinks is the right stuff to make the image, just the stuff you > set in your local.conf. > > If from the local.conf, you so IMAGE_INSTALL_append, what ever you set > will get added after all the processing of the various settings for the > image is > already complete. > > In an image recipe, like the one you call out, all the image processing > of what should be added etc, is alreaqdy done, when the =+ is added, so > the result is what you would expect. > > Different use cases generally have different suggested methods. However > this is more of a funcitonal discssion as I am not sure what the > community consensus > suggestions for setting things like IMAGE_INSTALL in local.conf is any more.
ah, got it. i didn't follow *every* detail above, but i had forgotten about the different levels of assignment "hardness", so in principle, i see what's happening. thanks. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ======================================================================== _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto