On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 03:59:36PM -0800, Joshua Lock wrote: > On 06/02/12 08:17, Paul Eggleton wrote: > > On Thursday 02 February 2012 13:11:19 Joshua Lock wrote: > >> Apologies. I'm wrong here. It was PRIORITY which we agreed to drop. > > > > It's worth noting however, at the same time PRIORITY removal was discussed > > it > > was acknowledged that SECTION was questionable. Logical grouping of > > recipes/packages is a useful thing but coming up with groupings that are > > meaningful in all contexts is hard :( > > Glad to know my recollection isn't wildly off the mark. > > I noticed that there are similar, yet different, SECTION values being > used. If we opt to keep SECTION I wonder if we should try and > standardise/sanitise it?
If there is standardised SECTION variable why not use recipes-${SECTION}/foo_1.0.bb as we already have couple of recipe-* directories and it's sometimes hard to decide to which directory something belongs. Or other way around, standartise recipes-* directories and let bitbake decide SECTION from it (like it does for PV and PN). Cheers, > > Debian's sections seem like reasonable inspiration? > http://packages.debian.org/stable/ > > I think SECTION is useful for tools like Hob and Narcissus, so I'm in > favour of keeping them. > > Cheers, > Joshua > -- > Joshua Lock > Yocto Project "Johannes factotum" > Intel Open Source Technology Centre > _______________________________________________ > yocto mailing list > yocto@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: martin.ja...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto