Re: [meta-oe][PATCH] smartmontools: import from OE classic

[Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>]

On Friday 03 May 2013 16:00:13 Nicolas Dechesne wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Nicolas Dechesne
> 
> <nicolas.dechesne@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Paul Eggleton
> > 
> > <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> 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