Khem Raj <raj.khem-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org> writes: >> > On the specifics of the do_install_append, you've seen my comments about >> > how we're not learning from past mistakes with the way the do_install in >> > the class was written. I note Phil also agreed with them, both of us >> > remembering some of the horrors we've dealt with in the past (and >> > binconfig.bbclass is still around, sadly). >> >> So you prefer same code to copy same type of files all over the recipes? > > duplicating usecase is better even though it may sound copying here > now think if you add this to a bbclass and works ok for a package > where we glue the unitfiles fast forward 6mos and the next version of > the package has added the unitfiles into the package itself since > systemd is so cool. We will be silently installing our own unit files > without knowing.
The recent .bbappends with their own do_install_append have this problem too. But due to the code replication the problem must be fixed at a lot of different places instead of at a central one. The .bbclass can do some sanity checks (e.g. making the copy operation fail when the unit file already exists). > Worst if the files from package are different. Having individual > install append gives you an opportunity to this append I do not see how this is better than removing the local .service from SRC_URI. Enrico _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
