On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Ricardo Salveti de Araujo <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Otavio Salvador >> The changes looks good to me at least. One thing that I'd interesting >> to know is how are you using the PRODUCT setting and what use cases >> you've been solving with it. > > Cool, thanks for reviewing it.
No problem; you're welcome. > The PRODUCT override came with the need of using Mamona with a common > machine but for different purposes. Instead of maintaining different > trees, we decided to create the concept of a product and define there > the preferred version and providers for different packages. > > With this we could work with both "products" at the same tree, just > using the overrides at the product file to define the best behavior > for that machine. I see. > One single example we had was regarding the legal check phase of a > product, that we knew that some version of some packages was already > approved, when at the same moment newer versions weren't (so with > another product that we just started we could use the newer version, > but for the older one we had keep the same old version, because was > close to be finished). > >> The only cosmetic thing that you might change is to reorder the patch >> that introduces PRODUCT in bitbake.conf and the distro change to allow >> for easier understanding of where it come from. > > Ok, will change that. Will also change the commit message to explain > that the idea came from mamona. Well but it looks like that to it properly work you need to use one $TMPDIR for each "product" otherwise if this product has a patch (or requires one) and the package is already built it won't get it. Am I missing anything? -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: [email protected] http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
