[yocto] [PATCH] Use "+=" consistently when setting IMAGE_FSTYPES in Yocto machine conf files.

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 12-12-13 5:51 PM, Gary Thomas wrote:
> On 2012-12-13 14:45, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, David Nyström wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Hmm,
>>> This will lead to these variables beeing append:able but
>>> non-overridable in image layer, as an(un?)intended consequence,
>>> right ?
>>>
>>> Br,
>>> David
>>>
>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Robert P. J. Day [rpjday at crashcourse.ca]
>>> Received: Thursday, 13 Dec 2012, 20:59
>>> To: Yocto discussion list [yocto at yoctoproject.org]
>>> Subject: [yocto] [PATCH] Use "+=" consistently when setting
>>> IMAGE_FSTYPES in Yocto machine conf files.
>>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday at crashcourse.ca>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> diff --git a/meta-yocto-bsp/conf/machine/atom-pc.conf
>>> b/meta-yocto-bsp/conf/machine/atom-pc.conf
>>> index 77dd7fb..fbde1d3 100644
>>> --- a/meta-yocto-bsp/conf/machine/atom-pc.conf
>>> +++ b/meta-yocto-bsp/conf/machine/atom-pc.conf
>>> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ XSERVER ?= "xserver-xorg \
>>>
>>> MACHINE_EXTRA_RRECOMMENDS = "kernel-modules eee-acpi-scripts"
>>>
>>> -IMAGE_FSTYPES ?= "ext3 cpio.gz live"
>>> +IMAGE_FSTYPES += "ext3 cpio.gz live"
>>>
>>> APPEND += "usbcore.autosuspend=1"
>>>
>>> diff --git a/meta-yocto-bsp/conf/machine/routerstationpro.conf
>>> b/meta-yocto-bsp/conf/machine/routerstationpro.conf
>>> index e5e4d1a..c7a5ad5 100644
>>> --- a/meta-yocto-bsp/conf/machine/routerstationpro.conf
>>> +++ b/meta-yocto-bsp/conf/machine/routerstationpro.conf
>>> @@ -22,5 +22,5 @@ USE_VT ?= "0"
>>>
>>> MACHINE_EXTRA_RRECOMMENDS = " kernel-modules"
>>>
>>> -IMAGE_FSTYPES ?= "jffs2 tar.bz2"
>>> +IMAGE_FSTYPES += "jffs2 tar.bz2"
>>
>> please don't top post. and i'll have to take a look at this to see
>> what the potential problem is here. can anyone else see a potential
>> issue with this patch?
>
> Yes, as David said, it eliminates the possibility of overriding
> the variable. IMO, all of these should be ?= which lets there
> be a useful default, but can still be [completely] overridden
> by the user.

I'd agree that if we were shooting for consistency, I'd go with
?= and not the +=.

Cheers,

Bruce

>