> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Phil Blundell > Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 4:20 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [oe] [PATCH] base.bbclass: fix soc-family test > > On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 14:37 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > I'd like us to find a compromise and a solution that satisfies everybody. > > > > Unfortunately, the original discussion about SOC_FAMILY vs. > MACHINE_CLASS > > never came to any fruition - Graeme explained his motives behind > MACHINE_CLASS > > and said that it is now deprecated. > > > > It was also mentioned, while SOC_FAMILY is slightly newer than > MACHINE_CLASS, > > the feature itself is over a year old and used quite extensively, > although > > limited mainly to recipes/ti location... > > > > And if technically SOC_FAMILY may be similar to MACHINE_CLASS, logically > they > > try to solve grouping problem from different direction, which was also > > explained. > > > > After that the original discussion was stalled and there were no strong > > opinions one way or another. Based on that, Chase's change was pushed. > > > > I see and understand Phil's position - if that's strong enough, we can > > re-consider. > > I take the point about MACHINE_CLASS and SOC_FAMILY being different in > intent. However, I do feel that these are just two out of a whole > universe of possible machine groupings and I remain somewhat uneasy > about adding this sort of thing to base.bbclass: if we admit SOC_FAMILY > (or even MACHINE_CLASS) there then it seems like it will set an > undesirable precedent for the next guy who wants his favourite machine > grouping to be given the same treatment. (The same thing applies to the > OVERRIDES patch that was posted recently and which I am not very fond of > either.) > > How many recipes are there for which this is a big deal? It's worth > remembering that the whole COMPATIBLE_MACHINE thing in base.bbclass is, > essentially, just syntactic sugar and there is nothing to stop you from > implementing whatever compatibility logic you want in your own .bb files > (or in an .inc, or a custom class). If there are only a handful of > recipes for which gating on SOC_FAMILY is required then I would suggest > that you simply put the appropriate Python bits in those recipes.
Phil, First thanks for the response. There a quite a few recipes that use this or plan to use it. Kernel recipes, several of the recipes in the "recipes/ti" directory. I guess as a person who actually uses this I have a bias here. I hope you can understand though that this is variable found usefulness as an override and that is why it was extended to also work for COMPATIBLE_MACHINE. > > p. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
