On Aug 2, 2011, at 7:14 AM, Chris Larson <clar...@kergoth.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Phil Blundell <ph...@gnu.org> wrote: >> Actually, to some extent I consider it a bit of a misfeature that the >> layer priority is specified by the layer rather than by the user in >> bblayers.conf, since this makes it harder to vary the stack-up order >> without local hackery to the layer files. For example, meta-oe >> currently sets itself to a higher priority than oe-core, but I've found >> that it generally seems to suit me better if meta-oe is actually the >> lower-priority layer. > > Agreed. It also means that the priority knowledge is split between > layer.conf and bblayers.conf today, as config/class priority is > determined by order of entries in BBLAYERS, whereas recipe priority is > determined by layer.conf. In my opinion the layer priority for all kind of meta data should be consistent and selected using bblayers.conf > -- > Christopher Larson > clarson at kergoth dot com > Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus > Maintainer - Tslib > Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics > > _______________________________________________ > bitbake-devel mailing list > bitbake-de...@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/bitbake-devel _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
