On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 03:59:36PM -0800, Joshua Lock wrote: > On 06/02/12 08:17, Paul Eggleton wrote: > > On Thursday 02 February 2012 13:11:19 Joshua Lock wrote: > >> Apologies. I'm wrong here. It was PRIORITY which we agreed to drop. > > > > It's worth noting however, at the same time PRIORITY removal was discussed > > it > > was acknowledged that SECTION was questionable. Logical grouping of > > recipes/packages is a useful thing but coming up with groupings that are > > meaningful in all contexts is hard :( > > Glad to know my recollection isn't wildly off the mark. > > I noticed that there are similar, yet different, SECTION values being > used. If we opt to keep SECTION I wonder if we should try and > standardise/sanitise it?
If there is standardised SECTION variable why not use
recipes-${SECTION}/foo_1.0.bb as we already have couple of recipe-*
directories and it's sometimes hard to decide to which directory
something belongs.
Or other way around, standartise recipes-* directories and let bitbake
decide SECTION from it (like it does for PV and PN).
Cheers,
>
> Debian's sections seem like reasonable inspiration?
> http://packages.debian.org/stable/
>
> I think SECTION is useful for tools like Hob and Narcissus, so I'm in
> favour of keeping them.
>
> Cheers,
> Joshua
> --
> Joshua Lock
> Yocto Project "Johannes factotum"
> Intel Open Source Technology Centre
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
--
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ yocto mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
