2009/12/30 Leon Woestenberg <[email protected]>: > Hello, > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Koen Kooi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> OK understood, apparantly we want to have a generic image base >>>> containing udev, a login, shadow etc. >>>> that is distro-indepent. >>>> >>>> Can we remove that from the image class, and move into a >>>> image-boot.inc or something? >> >> What's the problem with setting 3 vars to "" in your helloworld image? >> > Let me counter that question: What's the problem with bitrot and poor > design if the end result still works? > > Of course it's easy to add 3 vars, that's not my point. The point is > those 3 vars do not need to be hard coded by > default in a class. > > > Design: > > The class implements the work to be done. > The recipes describe what work has to be done indirectly. > > Design problem: > > The class now contains hard-coded package names directly. > > The image recipes have to know the internals of the class in order to > revert to fully customizable behaviour. > > > Of course I could stop being frustrated about this and happily add 3 > vars to my image and not care about this anymore. > > > Regards, > -- > Leon
Leon, I agree with your line of reasoning. Classes specify the how and recipes specify the what. May I propose to put this on the agenda of the TSC ? Frans. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
