On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Chris Larson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Bruce Ashfield <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Christopher Larson <[email protected]> >> 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 :)
Works for me. Thanks for the explanation. Bruce > -- > Christopher Larson > clarson at kergoth dot com > Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus > Maintainer - Tslib > Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics -- "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end" _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
