We should remove the bit about FILESDIR as well, it's a remnant. I don't think mentioning patches is a good idea. Bitbake and it's fetchers don't care about that. That would belong in the OE manual instead, I believe.
Thanks for spending your time on this, by the way. I, and I'm certain our users, definitely appreciate it. -- Chris Larson On Jan 16, 2010, at 9:07 AM, "Robert P. J. Day" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
