2010/8/30 Chris Larson <[email protected]>: > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> 2010/8/30 Chris Larson <[email protected]>: >> > >> > >> > The logic already exists. SPECIAL_PKGSUFFIX has to have current >> information >> > about the suffixes in order for BPN to be correct. It seems pretty silly >> to >> > duplicate it, but whatever works. >> >> I thought there was no suffix for target. It would be nice to have >> that. For _native, _sdk etc it exists, but I cannot say >> DEPENDS_target = ... >> which could be handy in recipes using BBCLASSEXTEND = "native" > > > There is no suffix for target, which is why the previously mentioned snippet > compares PN to BPN (BPN is PN with the SPECIAL_PKGSUFFIX'es removed). > -- Yes, well my concern is that that solution is not too understandable for the average developer. And from a consistent/standard viewpoint it seems to have sense to have _target adjacent to _natve etc.
Frans _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
