On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Richard Purdie <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 11:58 +0100, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: > > Sounds quite nice. > > Didn't study the class code, but it would be nice if within layer.conf > > I could use a relative path, which then is turned into an absolute > > path when the layer.conf file is read > > This is what the LAYERDIR variable gives us. > > Having relative paths would lose all context outside the layer.conf > file. We could hardcode a list of variables that needed to be processed > and so on but LAYERDIR removes all that complexity whilst still letting > you move things around. > > > That means layer.conf can become very standard wrt BBPATH etc. and you > > can even move layers around. > > You should be able to do that with my proposal, the only file that would > need changing is bblayers.conf, not the layers themselves. > Can you explain what the use case is for needing this much control? I find it unlikely that it would be problematic to simply add each layer as a full path to a list of layers in a single file, and leave it at that (i.e. bblayers.conf). If site files aren't in the layer, they won't be used. If recipes aren't around, they won't be used. It seems a bit silly if every layer.conf ends up being a copy of every other layer.conf. And this sort of blind copying tends to lead to problems and cruft (just look at distros that copy angstrom). -- Christopher Larson clarson at kergoth dot com Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus Maintainer - Tslib Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
