On 02/06/2012 11:06 PM, Martin Jansa wrote: > 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).
Brilliant. -- Darren > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > yocto mailing list > yocto@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto