Re: Master broken?

[Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org>]

On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 11:22 +0200, Dr. Michael Lauer wrote:
> Take a look at bitbake.conf The DISTRO configuration is included via the
> 'include' directive, which is a permissive include – in contrast to 'require',
> which is a mandatory include.
> 
> I don't recall our reasons for keeping it like that, but I remember that 'require'
> wasn't present at the time we wrote bitbake.conf. Perhaps we should reconsider
> that 'include'.

Partly because, as you say, bitbake didn't support "require" at the
time; and also partly because, when that part of bitbake.conf was
originally written, both DISTRO and MACHINE were much more optional than
they are today.  (In fact, the sample local.conf still implies that it's
legitimate to not select a MACHINE or DISTRO, though in practice I'm not
sure that it's feasible to get any useful results if you don't.)

I agree, it seems reasonable to change that include to a require.
Anybody who genuinely doesn't want a distro configuration is presumably
going to be savvy enough to create a dummy file in order to keep bitbake
happy.

p.