Hi Robert, On Sunday 17 November 2013 11:17:13 Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Sun, 17 Nov 2013, Chris Larson wrote: > > ... huge snip that i hope won't be necessary ... > > > This test you did makes no sense. Of course it’s in IMAGE_FEATURES, > > you put it there. What you didn’t check is whether > > ${ROOTFS_PKGMANAGE} ended up being installed in the image, which it > > won’t be. > > i think i see my basic and fatal misunderstanding, and if you can > tolerate one more post, i want to make sure i know what i did wrong as > i want to write this up and i want to be accurate. > > as i understood it (apparently incorrectly), IMAGE_FEATURES fell > into two categories: > > 1) actual package groups, as defined in core-image.bbclass, as in: > > PACKAGE_GROUP_x11 = "packagegroup-core-x11" > PACKAGE_GROUP_x11-base = "packagegroup-core-x11-base" > PACKAGE_GROUP_x11-sato = "packagegroup-core-x11-sato"
As I keep saying, these aren't package groups despite the name of the variable. Please stop calling them that. All they say is that if "x11" is present in IMAGE_FEATURES, bring in packagegroup-core-x11. The fact that these *do* point to actual package groups as packages is pretty much incidental. > 2) non-package group values that were processed independently by > code in image.bbclass, such as "read-only-rootfs" or "debug-tweaks" > > what i *thought* was that each setting had to be one *or* the other, > but not both. so when i saw code in image.bbclass that was handling > the "package-management" IMAGE_FEATURE, i immediately assumed that > meant it couldn't *also* represent an actual package group. is that > where i went wrong? > > so, in this one case for the IMAGE FEATURE "package-management", > there is an actual package group defined as: > > PACKAGE_GROUP_package-management = "${ROOTFS_PKGMANAGE}" Not a package group. > which represents the packages: > > $ bb show -r core-image-base ROOTFS_PKGMANAGE > Parsing recipes..done. > # ROOTFS_PKGMANAGE=opkg opkg-collateral ${EXTRAOPKGCONFIG} > ROOTFS_PKGMANAGE="opkg opkg-collateral poky-feed-config-opkg" > $ > > but that feature *also* pulls in additional processing as it's defined > in image.bbclass. > > have i finally got it right? In that there are several things at work dealing with the single "package- management" item, yes. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto