On Friday 03 May 2013 16:00:13 Nicolas Dechesne wrote: > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Nicolas Dechesne > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Paul Eggleton > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > On Friday 26 April 2013 23:41:38 Koen Kooi wrote: > >>> >> And do you really need a .inc? > >>> > > >>> > Are we removing inc files if they were present in OE Classic? First > >>> > I've > >>> > heard if we are... > >>> > >>> If we are trying to reduce the number of versions of recipes we carry, > >>> dropping .inc files would seem to be a good idea. I don't have strong > >>> feelings, but it seems like something we should consider. > >> > >> I agree we should try to keep only one version of each recipe in software > >> layers, however I figure it makes it easier for people to carry their own > >> versions of recipes in distro layers (particularly older, which may be > >> required in certain circumstances) if we do keep inc files where they > >> already exist. > > > > I put the .inc in this patch, indeed because it was there in OE > > Classic. I can update the patch if there is a consensus to remove the > > .inc. > > > > also for the INC_PR, I added it, because I thought it makes sense for > > .bb with .inc to have that. again, i can update the patch if you > > recommend doing this way. > > hi, can you please let me know what I should do here? i can update the > patch if needed, but not sure there is a clear consensus on what to > do!
IMO, let's keep the separate inc file, but drop PR and INC_PR. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
