On 7/16/21 11:28 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-07-16 at 14:35 +0000, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
>>
(trimmed to add a minor comment)
>> As to RDEPENDS_${PN} & co, wouldn't it make sense to use RDEPENDS_pn-${PN},
>> since "pn-<package name>" already exists as an override?
>
> PN is really badly named since it is effectively the recipe name in many
> contexts. We're specifying one single thing in overrides with it rather than
> a suite of packages a recipe generates. I can't see how using pn- like that
> would work for the use cases we have for the package name override.
In this case ${PN} is just a name. It's because PACKAGES contains ${PN} by
default.
Really it's RDEPENDS_<package>. Which is distinctly different then
RDEPENDS_pn-${PN} which is 'RDEPENDS' when evaluated.
I know minor distinction, but this is why I don't advocate treating RDEPENDS
(and other package specific variables) as overrides, but instead think of this
as RDEPENDS_<package>_<operation/override>...
So with proposed syntax becomes RDEPENDS_<package>:operation/override
>> On that note,
>> I would like to see overrides being prefixed more (maybe even as a
>> requirement). Some suggestions:
>>
>> pn- - Package name
>> df- - Distro feature
>> mf- - Machine feature
>> pf- - Package feature (can we rename/alias PACKAGECONFIG to
>> PACKAGE_FEATURES while at it, for consistency?)
>> arch- - Architecture
>> dist- - Distribution
>>
>> That way it would be more obvious what an override does. Especially the
>> use of the distro name as an override can have some unforeseen consequences
>> if the name is somewhat common).
>
> We have tried to do this with newer overrides where it makes sense. It is
> a tradeoff between longer names and usability. I don't think adding something
> for the package name would help. Having "distro-" and "machine-" could
> help in some cases but it comes at the price of more complicated conversions
> and it becomes a question of whether things become more readable. Worth
> thinking
> about but the above list doesn't really make sense since features are in
> overrides.
I've definitely run into problems where distro name or machine name collided
with a different override in the past and took a long time for me to realize the
clash was happening and thus the wrong variables were being evaluated.
--Mark
> (PACKAGECONFIG should really be RECIPE_FEATURES if we're going to talk names!)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#1275):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/message/1275
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/84225642/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
