On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 10:19 -0800, Steve Sakoman wrote: > My tested-by was indeed performed with the meta-oe layer enabled. > > In the future I will make clear what layers were used in my testing. > > I fear that this kind of thing is going to bite us repeatedly :-(
It's never been entirely clear to me why meta-oe needs to override quite so many bits of oe-core as it does. I think you're probably right that, as long as it continues to do so, and people enable meta-oe during testing, this sort of issue probably is going to continue to occur. We had some discussion a while back about making the layer priority be a user-configurable thing, which would enable you to sink meta-oe beneath oe-core in the priority stack. This would allow you to use the recipes which are in meta-oe but not oe-core, without overriding the bits that do exist in oe-core itself. I think I lost that argument at the time but I still feel this would be an improvement. (Actually, right now what I am doing is just cherry-picking the few recipes that I need from meta-oe into a local layer and not adding meta-oe itself to bblayers.conf at all.) p. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
