[yocto] Problems building live image

[K Richard Pixley]

On 3/14/16 15:58 , Rudolf Streif wrote:
> Richard,
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:55 PM, K Richard Pixley <rich at noir.com 
> <mailto:rich at noir.com>> wrote:
>
>     If I add that line, (
>
>     IMAGE_FSTYPES = "vmdk"
>
>     ), to my local.conf, I get:
>
>         rich at burgess> time bitbake core-image-minimal
>         ERROR:  OE-core's config sanity checker detected a potential
>         misconfiguration.
>             Either fix the cause of this error or at your own risk
>         disable the checker (see sanity.conf).
>             Following is the list of potential problems / advisories:
>
>             Error, IMAGE_FSTYPES vmdk and live can't be built together
>
>
>         Summary: There was 1 ERROR message shown, returning a non-zero
>         exit code.
>
>     Building yocto-2.0 for genericx86-64.  What am I doing wrong?
>
> Nothing really. The issue is conflicting SYSLINUX_LABELS for the boot 
> options. For the live image the labels are boot and install while 
> there is only boot for the vmdk image. Prior to 2.0 Jethro you could 
> specify both, live and vmdk, in IMAGE_FSTYPES. It built both but the 
> live image was missing the install boot option (it had two boot 
> options instead). This function in syslinux.bbclass now flags the issue:
>
> # Some of the vars for vm and live image are conflicted, this function
> # is used for fixing the problem.
> def syslinux_set_vars(d, suffix):
>    vars = ['SYSLINUX_ROOT', 'SYSLINUX_CFG', 'LABELS', 'INITRD']
>    for var in vars:
>        var_with_suffix = var + '_'+ suffix
>        if d.getVar(var, True):
>            bb.warn('Found potential conflicted var %s, please use %s 
> rather than %s'% \
>                (var, var_with_suffix, var))
>        elif d.getVar(var_with_suffix, True):
>            d.setVar(var, d.getVar(var_with_suffix, True))
>
>
>  Technically, in my opinion, you should be able to build both at the 
> same time. You may want to disable the sanity checker.
Thank you.

What stops us from building different boot labels for different images?  
That seems like the obvious choice.  Or perhaps, using "boot" for all 
syslinux images and adding "install" for "live" images.

--rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/yocto/attachments/20160314/e5866425/attachment.html>