On Wed, 2024-11-06 at 06:26 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 6:18 AM Richard Purdie via lists.openembedded.org > <richard.purdie=linuxfoundation....@lists.openembedded.org> wrote: > > I think we've had this idea around on occasions before but I'm > > going to > > write it down as an official proposal. In the interests of small > > contained but useful tweaks, I'd like to suggest we add an > > "include_all" directive. > > > > Example usage would be: > > > > include_all conf/distro/include/maintainers.inc > > > > which would iterate BBPATH and include (in order) each > > maintainers.inc > > file it finds. > > > > This would be used for things like the maintainers inc files so > > that > > other layers could add values to some central list. The clang inc > > files > > were another possible use case or the static libs or other inc > > files we > > have in core. > > > > It would all a few more files bitbake would have to check for the > > presence of to check cache validation but that is already a complex > > problem and we have ways to handle this. > > > > I did wonder about "require_all" but I doubt we need the difference > > in > > semantics for this form of operation and include is good enough. > > > > Thoughts? > > Seems ok to me. Who wins the race when there are more than one file > mentioning duplicates
Usual variable definition syntax so it would depend how the values were set (?= vs ? vs ??=). We don't want to change the syntax depending on the file! Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2058): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/message/2058 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/109425270/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-architecture+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
