On (10/02/12 16:14), Darren Hart wrote: > > > 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).
thats a good idea _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto