Op 3 mei 2013, om 16:35 heeft Paul Eggleton <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven:
> 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. I still haven't heard a compelling case why smartmontools needs a .inc and all the other recipes in meta-oe don't. So drop the inc and be consistent with other recipes. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
