On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfi...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Christopher Larson <kerg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > +addtask kernel_configme after do_patch > > + > > linux-yocto.inc already has: > > addtask kernel_configme before do_configure after do_patch > > So we should be able to avoid adding the task to the class, right ? I > suppose the task could move into the class, but it was always a per > recipe include in the past, I just don't want any unintended issues to > happen from the double task add. > It depends on whether there's a need to support the use of the class without the .inc. If not, there are probably a number of bits in the .inc that belong in the class :) But it's never harmful to have multiple addtask lines, it just adds the specified deps to the existing task. I just wanted to make sure one couldn't get into a state where do_diffconfig depends on a function which isn't a task, as I would expect (though couldn't say with 100% certainty) that bitbake would yell about that :) -- Christopher Larson clarson at kergoth dot com Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus Maintainer - Tslib Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core