Re: [PATCH 1/1] curl: fix native dependency

[Qing He <qing.he@intel.com>]

On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 23:16 +0800, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 11:12 +0800, Qing He wrote:
> > Thank you for the fix, I've been looking the smart data section
> > recently, and the rationale becomes much clearer to me.
> > 
> > However, the following case still has some confusion:
> > 
> > FOO = "A"
> > FOO_append = "B"
> > FOO_virtclass-native = "C"
> > 
> > when in virtclass-native, the output is simply "C", instead of "CB"
> > as I expected
> 
> This is a tricky one. It would be interesting to see if this applies
> with other overrides such as MACHINE. The reason I say that is the way
> the virtclass-native override is added (see native.bbclass).

So you mean this is intended? The FOO_append is meant to be hidden by
the use of an override? I'd rather have expected something like this:

---
diff --git a/bitbake/lib/bb/data_smart.py b/bitbake/lib/bb/data_smart.py
index c8cd8f8..3e4c710 100644
--- a/bitbake/lib/bb/data_smart.py
+++ b/bitbake/lib/bb/data_smart.py
@@ -149,6 +149,11 @@ class DataSmart:
             for var in vars:
                 name = var[:-l]
                 try:
+                    for op in __setvar_keyword__:
+                        if op in self[name]:
+                            sval = self.getVarFlag(name, op, False)
+                            self.setVarFlag(var, op, sval)
+
                     self[name] = self[var]
                 except Exception:
                     bb.msg.note(1, bb.msg.domain.Data, "Untracked delVar")

---


> SRC_URI where the name contains an "_" but since we don't allow
> overrides to contain the character, I think we're safe.
> 
> I also think you can simplify the logic slightly to be:
> 
> +                            for override in o.split('_'):
> +                                if not override in overrides:
> +                                    keep.append((a ,o)) 
> +                                    continue
> 
> ?
> 

This `continue' falls into the scope of `for override in o.split'
instead of the former one, chances are the (a, o) can be appended
more than once if multiple overrides not present.

Thanks,
Qing