On Fri, 22 Nov 2013, Paul Eggleton wrote: > Hi Robert, > > On Friday 22 November 2013 05:50:39 Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Nov 2013, Nicolas Dechesne wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Rifenbark, Scott M > <scott.m.rifenb...@intel.com> wrote: > > > >suggests that, to customize an image, you should copy the existing > > > >.bb file for> > > > > >that image to another name and add a line like: > > > > IMAGE_INSTALL += "strace" > > > > > > > >but rather than *copy* the entire image file, isn't it easier to > > > >use what's > > > >already being used; that is, just "include" or "require" the > > > >existing .bb file.> > > > >example: core-image-minimal-mtdutils.bb contains: > > > i would agree with the doc. while it is tempting to include/require > > > a 'minimal' image, and it is simpler at first sight, eventually you > > > will need to have full control of all your image. especially when > > > your 'image' is your 'product' that gets deployed. In such > > > circumstances I believe it is more appropriate to not rely on an > > > external recipe. e.g. if the minimal image you include change, all > > > your derived images change too... > > > > > > it's kind of a 'taste' choice, and you might want to choose to do > > > differently, but still the best recommendation to me is to own your > > > image recipes completely... > > > > your logic is sound; however, it's also reasonable to suspect that > > if someone is going to create a new, initial image over which they > > want full control, they may very well want to create some subtle > > variants of that image (as is done with all those core images). > > > > so perhaps both approaches should be documented with the appropriate > > caveats? > > Maybe, but this is really no different than any other type of > recipe. I'd much rather us have some documentation on how to share > commonality between recipes (where we discuss the usage and relative > merits of include/require and bbclass files, for example) and just > note in the image recipe section that image recipes are recipes and > point to that generic documentation. > > I had a hand in writing this section so I'm completely biased, but I > agree with Nicolas - including any of the core-image-* in your own > recipe isn't giving you much of an advantage and may in fact cause > unexpected changes when you come to upgrade. Image recipes tend to > be fairly trivial, so it's simplest to just have your own discrete > recipe (although if you want to have variants of that recipe that > you also control, by all means use includes or classes to share the > common parts.)
ok, this makes sense. i'll shut up now. 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