On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Richard Purdie < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-08-29 at 12:49 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-08-29 at 07:37 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > distroless. i realize i *could* set a value for DISTRO, but it would > > > seem that i shouldn't have to in order to avoid a build error. > > > > Well, either you're using angstrom or you aren't. If you do want to use > > it then you ought to set DISTRO appropriately, and if you don't want to > > use it then you probably oughtn't to have the angstrom layer included at > > all. > > > > Trying to use the angstrom .bbappends and files with a different (or no) > > distro configuration will give you a set of metadata that's neither one > > thing nor the other and, even if you didn't get a build error, there's > > no guarantee that the resulting image would actually work. > > I'm not sure I agree. Ideally layers should be includable without > turning on behaviour unless it is enabled. This is why we have things > like an array of OVERRIDES to chose from. > > So I'd actually suggest this is a bug in the angstrom layer. There are > also other layers which probably have issues, maybe including meta-yocto > but we should fix them. > > I'll go further and suggest that Yocto Project Compatible status might > depend on this in future (the current questions suggest it should be the > case already). > I agree wholeheartedly with this. Distro and BSP layers really need to be leveraging OVERRIDES for anything distro or machine specific. -- Christopher Larson
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
