From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F3D9E00406 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 07:26:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Aug 2013 07:26:17 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,928,1367996400"; d="scan'208";a="389784735" Received: from timevans-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.122.252]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Aug 2013 07:26:16 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: Brad Litterell Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 15:26:08 +0100 Message-ID: <11108180.KlZSWrBJZD@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.10.5 (Linux/3.8.0-27-generic; KDE/4.10.5; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <2C678312-32B2-4184-9839-73D77D06525A@taser.com> References: <66996BFE-C7A8-4986-9D47-B1EF6827AD1A@taser.com> <7610515.7dZZ0L6LcG@helios> <2C678312-32B2-4184-9839-73D77D06525A@taser.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: What are _virtual providers? and other Suffixes? X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:26:18 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Brad, On Tuesday 20 August 2013 23:42:36 Brad Litterell wrote: > Thanks - that makes it clearer. But now I have one other question to ask: > > if virtual/xyz is added to overrides when the item is dealt with, then in > that case P_P_virtual/xyz_am335 has two overrides hanging off of the base > variable PREFERRED_PROVIDER. > > You also said earlier that the latest override applies, so is there some > rule for multiple conditionals on a variable? Yes, effectively all must be in OVERRIDES for the assignment statement to take effect. > E.g. What happens in a case like the following? > > OVERRIDES="foo1:bar2:car3" > > VARIABLE_foo1_bar2 = "both" > VARIABLE_car3 = "last one" > > what does VARIABLE wind up? The first is "more specific" in that it matches > two values in overrides, whereas car is last, but less specific. I would have thought that the value would have been "last one" however experimentation shows that "both" is what you actually get. I'm not exactly sure why. In practice I don't think we hit this kind of situation too often though, i.e. a mix of double and single overrides where the single override needs to take precedence. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre