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

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, Bruce Ashfield wrote:

> 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 ?
> > > >
> > > > -----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.
> > > >
> > > > 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 +=.

  if someone thinks that's a cleanup worth making and wants to take
it, help yourself to it, i'm going to be buried in ADT stuff all day.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================