From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UYHM7-0005aD-2f for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 03 May 2013 16:53:19 +0200 Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 May 2013 07:35:06 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,605,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="331007338" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.255.12.224]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 May 2013 07:35:05 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: Nicolas Dechesne Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 15:35:04 +0100 Message-ID: <12323341.7tMrSLVFbj@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.10.2 (Linux/3.8.0-19-generic; KDE/4.10.2; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <1367008757-18667-1-git-send-email-nicolas.dechesne@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Koen Kooi , openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [meta-oe][PATCH] smartmontools: import from OE classic X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 14:53:25 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Friday 03 May 2013 16:00:13 Nicolas Dechesne wrote: > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Nicolas Dechesne > > wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Paul Eggleton > > > > 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