On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Khem Raj <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Chris Larson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Khem Raj <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> I think -I and ASSUME_PROVIDED should have same syntax capabilities. > > > > I agree, in theory, but in reality, I think it's unintuitive that: > > ASSUME_PROVIDED += "gconf" > > will also indicate that gconffoo and gconfbar are provided. > > yes thats right. but -I gconf should mean same thats what I intended.
Ah, right. But, having the ability to ignore a group of recipes is useful when producing the graph -- you can exclude a good chunk of it. But, maybe that's better done in a postprocessing tool, or a different command line argument. Hmm. -- Christopher Larson clarson at kergoth dot com Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus Maintainer - Tslib Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics
_______________________________________________ Bitbake-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bitbake-dev
