On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 20:13 +0000, Burton, Ross wrote: > On 27 February 2014 20:06, Otavio Salvador <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Burton, Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 27 February 2014 18:01, Richard Purdie > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> +inherit autotools > >>> +B = "${S}" > >> > >> Why is this preferable to directly setting B in the recipe, which > >> seems more obvious to me. > > > > I see one benefit for it being easier to grep for; so we know this is > > one recipe which ought to be fixed and that rely on autotools. > > I'm apprehensive of adding a class whose sole purpose is to set a > variable that can be set in the recipe itself, and will be another > class to explain/document for the future. Grepping for an assignment > to B is almost as simple too.
I ended up doing it this way as: a) its easier to change in the recipes than typing the magic B=... incantation b) its easier to search for (sure you can grep B= but how do you know they're autotools recipes? This is particular hard when the inherit is in a common include file c) it means we can set (and change) policy globally from one place d) it contains the word "broken" nice and clearly Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
