Before we were forced to make the changes for #2192 , our tegraflash packages had the expected .tar suffix. Now they don't, so, for example, the file names aren't recognized as suitable for use with tar by its shell completion setup.
Prior to #1818 going in, we had an alternative way of specifying the package format, but that made it harder to apply any of the available compression types to the output.
It would be nice to get back to using a suffix that's more recognizable. See the discussion #2191 and #2192. We may need to submit patches upstream to OE-Core to allow for this, though.
Alternatively, we may need to rethink the whole tegraflash-as-image-type approach, and just use a recipe - or maybe even some wic plugins.
Before we were forced to make the changes for #2192 , our tegraflash packages had the expected
.tarsuffix. Now they don't, so, for example, the file names aren't recognized as suitable for use withtarby its shell completion setup.Prior to #1818 going in, we had an alternative way of specifying the package format, but that made it harder to apply any of the available compression types to the output.
It would be nice to get back to using a suffix that's more recognizable. See the discussion #2191 and #2192. We may need to submit patches upstream to OE-Core to allow for this, though.
Alternatively, we may need to rethink the whole tegraflash-as-image-type approach, and just use a recipe - or maybe even some wic plugins.