| Message ID | 1425397584-5154-4-git-send-email-naresh.bhat@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 3 March 2015 at 23:27, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3 March 2015 at 16:46, Naresh Bhat <naresh.bhat@linaro.org> wrote: >> Build iso image required syslinux package. We have already skip the syslinux >> package. Hence just skip the iso image build too. >> >> Signed-off-by: Naresh Bhat <naresh.bhat@linaro.org> >> Reviewed-by: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com> >> --- >> meta/classes/bootimg.bbclass | 6 +++++- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/meta/classes/bootimg.bbclass b/meta/classes/bootimg.bbclass >> index a8e0c19..2edba3a 100644 >> --- a/meta/classes/bootimg.bbclass >> +++ b/meta/classes/bootimg.bbclass >> @@ -266,7 +266,11 @@ python do_bootimg() { >> if d.getVar("EFI", True) == "1": >> bb.build.exec_func('build_efi_cfg', d) >> bb.build.exec_func('build_hddimg', d) >> - bb.build.exec_func('build_iso', d) >> + >> + if [ "${TARGET_ARCH}" == "aarch64" ]: >> + return > > erm is this shell-code or python-code? > > For the former there is no "==" operator for POSIX-compliant test(1) > implementations, for the latter the "[" looks suspicious. > > What am i missing? > thanks, Ah my mistake, Probably I could have implemented as below if d.getVar('TARGET_ARCH', True) == "aarch64": return Does it make sense ? >> + else: >> + bb.build.exec_func('build_iso', d) >> } >> >> IMAGE_TYPEDEP_iso = "ext3"
On 5 March 2015 at 02:07, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote: > Hi Naresh, > > On 3 March 2015 at 15:46, Naresh Bhat <naresh.bhat@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> + if [ "${TARGET_ARCH}" == "aarch64" ]: >> + return >> + else: >> + bb.build.exec_func('build_iso', d) > > > As Bernhard says, that isn't valid Python. Were these patches actually > tested? Yes, agreed. I will change it in my next series. I have tested with luvOS build. > > Ross
On 4 March 2015 at 12:56, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> wrote: > On March 4, 2015 8:15:15 AM GMT+01:00, Naresh Bhat <naresh.bhat@linaro.org> wrote: >>On 3 March 2015 at 23:27, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer >><rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 3 March 2015 at 16:46, Naresh Bhat <naresh.bhat@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> Build iso image required syslinux package. We have already skip the >>syslinux >>>> package. Hence just skip the iso image build too. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Naresh Bhat <naresh.bhat@linaro.org> >>>> Reviewed-by: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com> >>>> --- >>>> meta/classes/bootimg.bbclass | 6 +++++- >>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/meta/classes/bootimg.bbclass >>b/meta/classes/bootimg.bbclass >>>> index a8e0c19..2edba3a 100644 >>>> --- a/meta/classes/bootimg.bbclass >>>> +++ b/meta/classes/bootimg.bbclass >>>> @@ -266,7 +266,11 @@ python do_bootimg() { >>>> if d.getVar("EFI", True) == "1": >>>> bb.build.exec_func('build_efi_cfg', d) >>>> bb.build.exec_func('build_hddimg', d) >>>> - bb.build.exec_func('build_iso', d) >>>> + >>>> + if [ "${TARGET_ARCH}" == "aarch64" ]: >>>> + return >>> >>> erm is this shell-code or python-code? >>> >>> For the former there is no "==" operator for POSIX-compliant test(1) >>> implementations, for the latter the "[" looks suspicious. >>> >>> What am i missing? >>> thanks, >> >>Ah my mistake, Probably I could have implemented as below >> >>if d.getVar('TARGET_ARCH', True) == "aarch64": >> return >> >>Does it make sense ? > > At least the parser should grok it. > The change itself does not make sense to me either way. I did this change because it does not make any sense to build the ISO image for aarch64 architecture. The HDD image should be sufficient. Correct me if I am wrong. I find a dependency of syslinux package to build ISO image (isolinux.bin). I have skipped the syslinux package dependency @luvOS distribution. The syslinux package contains lot of x86 assembly code. That's the reason I just want to skip the ISO image build for aarch64 architecture. I will try to explain as much as possible in my next series patch > > Thanks, >> >>>> + else: >>>> + bb.build.exec_func('build_iso', d) >>>> } >>>> >>>> IMAGE_TYPEDEP_iso = "ext3" > >
Hi Bernhard Reutner-Fischer, On 5 March 2015 at 21:48, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 March 2015 at 15:06, Naresh Bhat <naresh.bhat@linaro.org> wrote: > >>>>if d.getVar('TARGET_ARCH', True) == "aarch64": >>>> return >>>> >>>>Does it make sense ? >>> >>> At least the parser should grok it. >>> The change itself does not make sense to me either way. >> I did this change because it does not make any sense to build the ISO >> image for aarch64 architecture. The HDD image should be sufficient. >> Correct me if I am wrong. I find a dependency of syslinux package to >> build ISO image (isolinux.bin). I have skipped the syslinux package >> dependency @luvOS distribution. The syslinux package contains lot of >> x86 assembly code. That's the reason I just want to skip the ISO image >> build for aarch64 architecture. > > COMPATIBLE_HOST of syslinux should have prevented you from building > syslinux for aarch64 in the first place, no? > > My assumption is that building this part of bootimg class for aarch64 > is wrong, you should have gotten an error when you attempt to build > the HDD-image for non-i386 compatible targets. > So, maybe, NOHDD should be (automagically) set based on > COMPATIBLE_HOST or something like this? > But then i don't really see why your aarch64 is the first to encounter > this so maybe your config is just wrong instead? > > Not my homework though ;) Yes, I do agree. I did my homework. I have missed a patch in this series. I will push the modified patches next series by today/tomorrow. Can we please continue the discussion on my next series. Probably you can give me few more points on my next patch series. > > thanks,
On 10 March 2015 at 14:42, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> wrote: > On March 9, 2015 9:11:29 AM GMT+01:00, Naresh Bhat <naresh.bhat@linaro.org> > wrote: > > >today/tomorrow. Can we please continue the discussion on my next > >series. Probably you can give me few more points on my next patch > >series. > > Please CC me so i do not overlook the new series, TIA. > Oops my apologies I forgot to CC you..:( I have already posted the v1 series @oe-core. I will keep in mind while posting next series.
diff --git a/meta/classes/bootimg.bbclass b/meta/classes/bootimg.bbclass index a8e0c19..2edba3a 100644 --- a/meta/classes/bootimg.bbclass +++ b/meta/classes/bootimg.bbclass @@ -266,7 +266,11 @@ python do_bootimg() { if d.getVar("EFI", True) == "1": bb.build.exec_func('build_efi_cfg', d) bb.build.exec_func('build_hddimg', d) - bb.build.exec_func('build_iso', d) + + if [ "${TARGET_ARCH}" == "aarch64" ]: + return + else: + bb.build.exec_func('build_iso', d) } IMAGE_TYPEDEP_iso = "ext3"