> -----Original Message----- > From: openembedded-devel-boun...@lists.openembedded.org > [mailto:openembedded-devel-boun...@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of > Chris Larson > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 11:42 AM > To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > Subject: Re: [oe] Question about OVERRIDES precedence > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Maupin, Chase <chase.mau...@ti.com> > wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: openembedded-devel-boun...@lists.openembedded.org > > > [mailto:openembedded-devel-boun...@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf > Of > > > Chris Larson > > > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:34 AM > > > To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > > > Subject: Re: [oe] Question about OVERRIDES precedence > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Maupin, Chase <chase.mau...@ti.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > So are you saying that we are just going to change the order of how > > > > OVERRIDES is appended to in OE like Denys was suggesting? That > would > > > still > > > > lead to issues like local not being the highest priority unless we > > would > > > > also change bitbake.conf to define OVERRIDES as > > > > "${TARGET_ARCH}:${TARGET_OS}:${MACHINE}:local". That way we could > > > prepend > > > > OVERRIDES in OE and still have local be the last one evaluated. > > > > > > > > > > No. What I'm saying is, the definition of OVERRIDES in bitbake.conf > will > > > be > > > reversed. Not that difficult to understand. I don't know how I could > > > possibly be any clearer here. > > > > Great. I assume this will be on the 1.10 branch as well as the master > > branch? Is there anything I can do to help here? > > > > There is no 1.10 branch in OE, so no. Again, we're changing it in OE, not > bitbake.
Chris, I just realized what you were talking about. I was looking at the bitbake.conf file in the bitbake repository, not the one in the OE repository. Now what you are saying makes more sense. Sorry for the confusion. > > I guess with the reversal of the definition in bitbake.conf we can then > > change the appends to prepends in OE as well as reversing the > definitions > > there. That way the OVERRIDES list should be built up in the proper > order. > > > Yes, indeed, though I suspect that the existing prepend/appends were done > by > people not thinking about the order, so they may not be correct the way > they are now anyway .. :) > -- > Christopher Larson > clarson at kergoth dot com > Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus > Maintainer - Tslib > Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel