On 09/04/2014 01:29 PM, Andreas Müller wrote: > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Burton, Ross <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 4 September 2014 15:12, Burton, Ross <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Quick question of style for the community to bikeshed on: in the >>> general case should recipes be split into foo_1.2.bb and foo.inc, or >>> should they only split to bb/inc if there are multiple versions and >>> generally there should just be foo_1.2.bb. >> >> Another argument against widespread inc files: they encourage the >> impression that maintaining multiple versions is just a matter of >> having a .inc file. The moment you start having to put >> version-specific statements into a .bb you've entered a world of pain >> in keeping the .bb files in sync, moving options into the .inc as they >> become used by all versions, and purging old version-specific >> statements. >> >> Ross >> -- > I agree with Ross: It often took me time to find out where > functionality comes from. Inc-files do only make sense for multiple > versions of recipes or if different recipes share same code (only > example I can remember is meta-gnome gvfs/gvfs-gdu-volume-monitor > circular-dependency hack). > > My feeling is that the inc-files are still from classic oe times where > we had multiple versions for many recipes and most can be merged into > recipes without loosing something.
The qwt recipe uses an include file and two bb files for qt versus qt-embedded builds. I do not know if this is wise, but it is a case not mentioned here. Philip > > Andreas > -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
