How about moving the common part which is supposed to get included into
the `.inc` file?
To be fair, I have not seen any case of `include` or `require` statement
with a recipe (.bb) file
rather than with the (`.inc`) file. Did you?
On 22.08.2018 15:34, Tomasz Michalski wrote:
Hi
I have recipes:
recipe_1.0.0.bb <http://recipe_1.0.0.bb>
recipe_1.0.1.bb <http://recipe_1.0.1.bb>
...
recipe_3.4.0.bb <http://recipe_3.4.0.bb>
If in some meta-layer I want to write some bbappend file to the latest
fresh version I create file
recipe_%.bbappend.
I have file otherRecipe.bb which is not versioned and inherit to
auto_package_version.
In definition of otherRecipe I have
DESCRIPTION = "some description"
SECTION = "nameOfSection"
LICENSE = "CLOSED"
require recipe_1.0.0.bb <http://recipe_1.0.0.bb>
(or
include recipe_1.0.0.bb <http://recipe_1.0.0.bb>)
How to change the above formula in order include the latest fresh
recipe instead of concrete version?
Replacing with "include recipe_%.bb" doesn't work.
--
Maciej Pijanowski
Embedded Systems Engineer
http://3mdeb.com | @3mdeb_com
--
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
