From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f171.google.com (mail-io0-f171.google.com [209.85.223.171]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D960578070 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 07:50:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f171.google.com with SMTP id z62so31038969ioi.3 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 00:50:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8jwe6nYxUC1eyGKsImV0N6wzN96Mzx/ahwOfbv95EYc=; b=ZeYYjejAW1KwHeGMu0fwV/yUYyNWALBpUvQ5rchc0id/wFnKBkprl8HynDACzu3Y37 fd8V/kFeyb72bharD+EQwxDgKMjamrMNZqog+gqCR0N+QJ/e74iQ2u2f4ntFSAsNM3kF lZjdciqFbfkyGuds+CBY6IyMVwEQkuE9L094EkO5aLYFbgprzECzvB98FxPKcNzSpBUO QCw1C3zNbemTIlacCSaEN9K+h2ch6r/2qL1lIEh+/yuKtdU7Yb4HPqACNs2/mOj/+s9p M0VddUm9NQeMJtF9qweqIb6nRcF90SgF4Wsy7E4TlAxT9K4U0eNmVTWvdsHzKTJGpj12 QHAA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8jwe6nYxUC1eyGKsImV0N6wzN96Mzx/ahwOfbv95EYc=; b=dL4+r9V560RvnlnlPRj4RlK4c7mZBrvsUTY2ZQmVWZxnDjc8f3fzHsWHNaDSlg8kDA 1RwBUGlsQ/cxIS+Q5LPV15DON8/cIHrZcwBqMMZrrPTo50e0GK0bCcowKRl3H11qgq1K qP7tn590kCzHjIDdNLaJOmx+TtVK1bl8w5/rFIDqHHFb4e5aEwLuigYgy3BJ+/vqcsAU hBCozGjLIGO8REZHervUwKw7Sa0RSUNWa1Jz8f65wJ7FWYUfcXFWb+gDbyYARpKZo83b YWxf8OZHFm4wA3w9u7DRzdsjZV6VFK/OaILx/p0owzPWDEQ+yj9Wm8xQM/UUkKUBaFN2 aT6A== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOwaGlKqi3NoHcflgjoH/rxgRYl4y8/b6wb0YBykJBcPedp9bQMj jQNiwBo44e03GZlh X-Received: by 10.107.151.140 with SMTP id z134mr9574134iod.83.1498636209020; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 00:50:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8F1CD.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.241.205]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g198sm2573373itb.29.2017.06.28.00.50.07 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 28 Jun 2017 00:50:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1498636205.7464.107.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Christopher Larson Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 09:50:05 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <89eb4c1de58d2de44df217a62c9cd791da16a9eb.1498577501.git-series.patrick.ohly@intel.com> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] yocto-compat-layer.py: avoid adding layers more than once X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 07:50:08 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 15:46 -0700, Christopher Larson wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Patrick Ohly > wrote: > add_layer_dependencies() might get called more than once, or > one of > the layer dependencies might already be present. The function > should > not add layers again because doing so can cause warnings like: > > WARNING: Duplicate inclusion > for .../meta-openembedded/meta-oe/conf/distro/include/meta_oe_security_flags.inc in .../meta-openembedded/meta-oe/conf/layer.conf > > Signed-off-by: Patrick Ohly > --- > > I’m curious about why this isn’t either just calling out to > `bitbake-layers add-layer` or using one of the existing functions we > have for modifying bblayers, rather than doing its own +=. I don't know exactly, Mark implemented it like that. My guess is that more control was needed over which layers get added. For example, "bitbake-layers add-layer" only adds one layer, but does not recursively add layers it depends on. This could be improved of course. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.