> -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Purdie [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: den 8 juni 2017 12:45 > To: Patrick Ohly <[email protected]>; Peter Kjellerstedt > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] bitbake.conf: DISTRO_FEATURES as > overrides > > On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 08:04 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-06-07 at 16:11 +0000, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote: > > > > > > Rather than requiring that the wanted DISTRO_FEATURES that should > > > be > > > available as overrides are defined in DISTRO_FEATURES_OVERRIDES > > > (which > > > should not be confused with the similarly named > > > DISTROFEATURESOVERRIDES > > > variable that you also add...), > > I had thought about those names and in the end went ahead with the > > similar names because the customizable one made sense to me and the > > internal one is similar to the other entries in OVERRIDES. > > > > > > > > why not add them all but with a prefix. > > > I.e., similar to how package names are available as overrides > > > prefixed > > > with "pn-", how about all distro features are made available as > > > overrides with a "df-" prefix? > > That would be fine with me. > > > > I just have a few concerns: > > * How performance-sensitive is OVERRIDES? How can the impact of > > both approaches be benchmarked? The idea behind the > > configurable > > subset was to add only a few new overrides. We currently have > > almost 70 individual entries in DISTRO_FEATURES. > > * I've seen confusion about the pn- prefix. At least df- would > > be > > named appropriately (in contrast to PN, which is historic), > > but > > it's yet another convention that might not be immediately > > obvious. The same is true for selecting a subset with the > > same > > name as the feature, though. > > * Can distro features contain characters that are invalid in an > > override? _ and : would have to be avoided, for example by > > mapping them to -. > > My feelings are: > > * We need to use a prefix. We've been burnt too many times in the past > when not using these. "df-" is fine, users will just have to deal > with it. > > * We should filter the list of overrides to those which the distro > wants to nominate. I really don't want to encourage wider spread of > things than we need to, these need to be conscious decisions.
Isn't there a risk that will be confusing? I.e., recipes that use, e.g., bb.utils.contains() to check if a distro feature is set will be affected as soon as the feature is added to DISTRO_FEATURES, but recipes that use the override will only be affected if the feature has also been added to some filter variable. > Cheers, > > Richard //Peter -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
