On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 12:30 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 5:06 AM, Richard Purdie > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 10:57 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Saul Wold <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > This recipe will create 1 package for config files, we could optionally > >> > add > >> > a bbclass file to ensure consistency with RRECOMMENDS_ = =conf > >> > > >> > This is a work in progress, the do_install might even beable to > >> > automagically > >> > generated. We don't want to create a bbclass for these since it will > >> > cause > >> > the actual recipe/packaging to become machine specific, using this > >> > recipe will > >> > ioslate that. > >> > > >> > [YOCTO #4011] > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Saul Wold <[email protected]> > >> > >> I think the configuration file, nowadays, already made those machine > >> specific in every BSP which has those overriden so I don't see why use > >> a single recipe to provide several configuration files. > >> > >> I think it will be confusing and this recipe will fast grow. > > > > There are a few good reasons to do this. > > > > Machine customisation is spread around a whole load of different recipes > > at the moment and its hard to obtain a good view of what files are > > available and which ones a BSP author may need to provide. > > > > Its rather ugly to have to provide and maintain multiple bbappend files > > with rather ugly syntax within them. Its also rather inefficient from a > > build process standpoint to have 15-20 recipes just packaging > > configuration files. > > > > The intent isn't to mandate *every* config file should be in this > > recipe, you will as now be able to add additional ones. Where we see the > > same files being added in many layers, adding something common and > > shared makes sense though. > > > > It should in some cases also allow the "core" recipe to stop being > > machine specific and shared, improving build efficiency. There is little > > point in a recipe becomming machine specific over a config file. > > > > So I'd consider this move a consolation which we can improve over time. > > For new users I'd suggest that one more common place for the majority of > > machine specific files would be more understandable too. > > I understand and mostly agree. However I don't want to have a recipe > with 20 configuration files where I'd need just two. > > So I think we'd need to have a way to 'enable/disable' each > configuration override. Does it makes sense?
I'd have thought our standard inheritance would apply so that if you didn't append a machine specific version, the default would be used? Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
