On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 9:18 AM Richard Purdie < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-11-06 at 08:31 -0800, Chuck Wolber wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 6:18 AM Richard Purdie via > > lists.openembedded.org > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'd have thought quite differently about that since "include" already > means "include all of the stuff inside of foo.inc". > I do not disagree, and it is how I would think of it too. But from my vantage point, I have seen a lot of people very new to Yocto/OE make broad assumptions about the face value of stuff that surprised me. This feels like it would be one of them, and I worry about surprising side effects (see below). > Also, is it safe to assume that when you say "each maintainers.inc > > file it finds", it does not actually mean full layer search, but > > something that is path relevant: > > > > import os > > for DIR in BBPATH.split(":"): > > F = DIR + "/" + INC_FILE > > if os.path.exists(F): > > include F > > Correct, the idea is it would mimic the behaviour of the existing > require/include statements but instead of matching one file, it would > match all (hence the naming). > Sorry if this question is redundant (I feel like it might be given what others have asked) - what about side effects like pulling in a layer that has include_all in a fragment somewhere. Would this pull things together in a non-obvious way almost creating a "backdoor bbappend" effect? ..Ch:W.. -- *"Perfection must be reached by degrees; she requires the slow hand of time." - Voltaire*
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2067): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/message/2067 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/109425270/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
