I've hit this issue in the past (different context, but I believe the same issue). What I end up doing is (in the initramfs) is effectively: OVERRIDES .= ":ramfs" IMAGE_FSTYPES_ramfs = "cpio" doing

Ah! Just slightly before my starting time with the project :) OK, thanks. Pondering time... -- Tom

Consider this example where the BSP sets: IMAGE_FSTYPES = "tar" IMAGE_FSTYPES_somemachine = "ext4" INITRAMFS_FSTYPES = "cpio" OVERRIDES = "${MACHINE}" then the initramfs image recipe

I haven't tried to obscure it, the machine name was in the original email but I guess not everyone remembers Zarus models names like I do! :) The BSP layer in question is meta-handheld,

Hi All, I've been using bitbake for >5 years now, however I do not understand the nature of the problem at all. Could you clarify what the problem is i.e. what's the difference between these

Thanks for all the details here. Since this is stemming from a specific BSP, I think at this point it might be good to share what exactly it is, and it wouldn't be seen as "shaming" that BSP at this

I should apologise for being a little grumpy in some of my replies, it is fair to say that everything is getting to me a little as continual build failures and being continually asked for reasoned

Think about this in the context of what the initramfs recipe is trying to do. It doesn't care about IMAGE_FSTYPES, it cares about INITRAMFS_FSTYPES only. If the BSP wants to change anything they'd

Hello Richard, Em ter., 15 de jun. de 2021 às 07:29, Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@...> escreveu: Having it resetting it might fix this use case but what if the _collie use case is

Sure, but then you just end up writing: unset IMAGE_FSTYPES IMAGE_FSTYPES = "x" The assignment wouldn't ignore them, it really would remove them from  the knowledge of the variable. The difference

Well, it seems like an ok thing for a BSP to do to me. There are probably  other ways it could be done, sure. No, I don't see how that helps. The issue in the email is an example of a general

I'm not terribly convinced it is. If the problem is that there's no way to clear the OVERRIDES, maybe we should just have a new verb to do that specifically rather than a new assignment operator

Is that an issue that needs to actually be fixed? This is just another example of weird BSP given by vendors to me, right? Resetting IMAGE_FSTYPES_collie to INITRAMFS_FSTYPES should be enough to fix

We have an interesting problem with initramfs images. They do something like: IMAGE_FSTYPES = "${INITRAMFS_FSTYPES}" which looks innocent enough until a BSP does: IMAGE_FSTYPES_collie =

We're starting to hit a maturity level with our internal development using multiconfigs that we need a way to export this into an eSDK. Currently we're working on the ability to build a system, it's

Hi, Due to the Yocto Project Summit running during our regular OpenEmbedded Happy Hour today, we decided to move it down by 3 hours and have Happy Hour at the end of the Summit, May 26 @ 2000/8pm

> https://www.openembedded.org/wiki/OEDVM_2021 > https://pretalx.com/yocto-project-summit-2021/talk/BVZMYW/ > 1530 UTC on Zoom (link in the URL above) In preparation for the BSP discussion at today's

I think people will know what is appropriate in their own circumstances. There was an ask that some of these things be "documented" and I'm trying to do that as I think some of the things here are

Thanks for summarizing all this. So is the ask to forward this within the one's Employer? -armin

TLDR: The project is seen as mature, employers don't prioritise maintaining things and we're struggling for maintainers and help with day to day work Open source projects survive, not just through