On 05/03/2013 11:09 AM, Martin Jansa wrote: > On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 03:42:30PM +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: >> On Friday 03 May 2013 16:30:17 Nicolas Dechesne wrote: >>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Koen Kooi <k...@dominion.thruhere.net>wrote: >>>>> I agree we should try to keep only one version of each recipe in >>>>> software >>>>> layers, however I figure it makes it easier for people to carry their >>>>> own >>>>> versions of recipes in distro layers (particularly older, which may be >>>>> required in certain circumstances) if we do keep inc files where they >>>>> already exist. >>> >>>> Can people raise their hand if they want to have a different version of >>>> smartmontools in their layer? >>> >>> i think it would be nice to have a policy for that. i am going to send a >>> couple of recipes for new components, and it would be good to know what's >>> the agreed 'policy' for .inc file. >> >> We probably should have a stated policy, yes. AFAIK the current perhaps >> unstated policy is to keep the inc file if it existed in OE-Classic. > > I don't have strong opinion about keeping/loosing .inc files, but > I've removed couple of .inc files when importing stuff from OE-Classic > in cases where .inc is relatively short (like in smartmontools). > > I would keep .inc when it's reused in different recipes or really > long/complicated (like mesa.inc). > > We also have policy that there is only one version per recipe if > possible.
I agree with Martin. I've dropped some .inc files for recipes I worry about also. Philip > >>> in fact, it's not even clear to me why >>> have .inc file is easier to carry different version in distro layers. well >>> it's just a 'large' recipe to carry over.. >> >> If you carry over the whole recipe rather than "require recipes- >> xyz/foo/foo.inc", then you won't get any improvements to the non-version- >> specific parts of the recipe when the base layer updates in the future. >> >> Alternatively if you "require recipes-xyz/foo/foo_6.5.bb" because there is >> no >> .inc, then your recipe will definitely break the next time the recipe in the >> base layer is upgraded, plus you may have to override more parts of the >> recipe >> that are specific to a different version than the one you are building. >> >> Cheers, >> Paul >> >> -- >> >> Paul Eggleton >> Intel Open Source Technology Centre >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
