[yocto] contradictory explanations of IMAGE_INSTALL in yocto manuals

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2012, Jeremy Puhlman wrote:
... snip ...

> Some images(not neccisarily in oe-core) set IMAGE_INSTALL explictly
> hard, which means you can add what ever you want in your
> local.conf and it will get replaced with what is in the recipe. If the
> recipe sets IMAGE_INSTALL soft, then what happens is when your
> local.conf is read, the value should start out as not defined, so when
> you += to the value you get what ever you set as the only value.
> Later on when things like core-image attempt to set via =? it sees that
> it is already set and should break the image since it doesn't add
> what it thinks is the right stuff to make the image, just the stuff you
> set in your local.conf.
>
> If from the local.conf, you so IMAGE_INSTALL_append, what ever you set
> will get added after all the processing of the various settings for the
> image is
> already complete.
>
> In an image recipe, like the one you call out, all the image processing
> of what should be added etc, is alreaqdy done, when the =+ is added, so
> the result is what you would expect.
>
> Different use cases generally have different suggested methods. However
> this is more of a funcitonal discssion as I am not sure what the
> community consensus
> suggestions for setting things like IMAGE_INSTALL in local.conf is any more.

  ah, got it.  i didn't follow *every* detail above, but i had
forgotten about the different levels of assignment "hardness", so in
principle, i see what's happening.  thanks.

rday

-- 

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

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