From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tim.rpsys.net (93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk [93.97.173.237]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00F49E011D1 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:58:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2QMwFuj001924; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 23:58:15 +0100 Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 00541-08; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 23:58:11 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2QMw5xL001917 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Mar 2012 23:58:06 +0100 Message-ID: <1332802684.28414.146.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Rudolf Streif Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 23:58:04 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <1332589972.27577.1.camel@ted> <41DEA4B02DBDEF40A0F3B6D0DDB1237945175E22@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: tentative list of vars to be dropped from variable glossary X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:58:20 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 12:42 -0700, Rudolf Streif wrote: > Another variable that seems to be dropped from the latest 1.1.1 > revision of the Reference Manual is BBMASK. In previous versions of > the manual it was explained that this variable can be used to remove > packages from images. However, that did not work for me and it did not > surprise me either. BBMASK removes recipes from being parsed. It does not remove them from images although that would I guess be an indirect result since you could no longer build them. > To include a package with an image you will have to make it a > dependency of that image. If you then hide the recipe of the package > using BBMASK then you are breaking the dependency and the Bitbake will > complain with "Nothing provides " because the dependency is > still there. > > I could not think of any other use case for BBMASK in the way it is > implemented. Are there any? Its designed so that if you for example didn't care out any *gpe* recipe, you could exclude them entirely and not even have the parse overhead. Its less useful now things are split into layers but nonetheless still valid syntax. Cheers, Richard