On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Robert P. J. Day <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jul 2012, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > ... snip ... > >> Sure ... but I'll point out that you are going into architectural >> details that are under the covers, and that are written from the >> point of view of a kernel tree maintainer using the tools, they are >> not written from the point of view of the casual observer. The >> moving parts of the tools that can be tweaked, are already brought >> out out to the recipes (I'll point out again that the bitbake >> recipes you see are but one binding). >> >> So yes, another variation of the document might be useful, but I've >> (we've), moved these details out from "in front" and instead have >> focussed on the use cases .. from someone creating a new BSP, or >> adding a configuration fragment to their build .. i.e. it looks and >> works just like any other package in the system from the point of >> view of user manipulations, with the extra functionality available >> if someone has used them, and finds that their use case doesn't fit >> the mold (i.e. how many people go an need to modify bitbake when >> using oe-core? it took me 2 years to need to do that). >> >> What is the goal of a class that you'd be trying to do around this ? >> That makes all the difference in what I'd suggest for options and >> changes. > > points well taken so let me make a much more innocuous suggestion. > perhaps the higher-level routines like createme, updateme, and so on > could have a short comment paragraph or two at the top just > summarizing what they do, nothing more than that.
Absolutely. Right in the scripts themselves .. a good suggestion, and I'll do that, it also saves me providing the information in multiple places (and I can shout, "read the fine script!" .. not likely, but I can dream :) > > i accept that even that higher level is still "under the covers" but > for the fun of it, i'm just following along with each (task) step of > building a yocto kernel, and it would make it *way* easier if i had > just a basic understanding of what each bitbake task was supposed to > accomplish. Yep. And I agree ... this is good, and no harm. My comments aren't meant to discourage, just direct to something that is useful for you, me and anyone else following along :) > > most of those utility scripts already have a "usage" routine -- how > hard would it be to add another few lines of comment as to what the > script is meant to do? Not hard .. I'll whip that up. > > anyway, i've whined about this sufficiently, so back to the code... That means it is my turn! ;) Cheers, Bruce > > rday > > -- > > ======================================================================== > Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA > http://crashcourse.ca > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday > LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday > ======================================================================== > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core -- "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end" _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
