On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, Christopher Larson wrote:
> All existing fetchers should be considered supported today, so of
> any are broken, those are bugs. The local fetcher today is
> essentially a no-op, as the real work about grabbing the correct
> version of the file is in do_unpack. I'd suggest just removing the
> bit about local using overrides entirely.
ok, at the moment, the bitbake manual reads:
"The URN for the Local File Fetcher is file. The filename can be
either absolute or relative. If the filename is relative FILESPATH and
FILESDIR will be used to find the appropriate relative file depending
on the OVERRIDES. Single files and complete directories can be
specified."
my thought would be to modify that to drop the qualifier "depending
on the OVERRIDES", as well as emphasizing that the local Fetcher is
used (almost?) exclusively for references to local files in the
directory or below such as patch files, config files, etc, and *not*
for actual package tarball downloads.
does that make sense?
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry.
Web page: http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================
_______________________________________________
Bitbake-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bitbake-dev
