On Saturday 02 November 2013 05:14:10 Robert P. J. Day wrote: > i figure the answer is obvious but i'll ask it anyway -- is it > reasonable to encourage new developers to use the general packagename > variables such as PN and BPN rather than hardcoding packagenames in > their recipe files?
Generally yes, but see below. > typically, you see things like this in recipe files: > > ALLOW_EMPTY_${PN} = "1" > ALLOW_EMPTY_${PN}-staticdev = "1" > > and so on. but, occasionally, someone decides to (unnecessarily?) > hardcode the package name, as in: > > gst-va-intel.bb:ALLOW_EMPTY_gst-va-intel = "1" > gst-va-intel.bb:ALLOW_EMPTY_gst-va-intel-general = "1" > gst-va-intel.bb:ALLOW_EMPTY_gst-va-intel-video = "1" > gst-va-intel.bb:ALLOW_EMPTY_gst-va-intel-vaapi = "1" > > i'm *assuming* the above could have been written more concisely by > using ${PN}, correct? is there a coding style preference that users > should be *encouraged* to use? is there a general coding style guide > anywhere? Whatever you put here it really needs to match up with what goes into PACKAGES - i.e. if you're putting explicit names in PACKAGES then use those here, if using ${PN} then use that here. If they don't match up, you'll get odd things happening if the recipe is renamed or when you use multilib / BBCLASSEXTEND. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto