From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Te5ZW-00023j-6T for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:58:46 +0100 Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 Nov 2012 06:43:37 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,184,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="249242972" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.122.249]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 Nov 2012 06:44:20 -0800 From: Paul Eggleton To: "Robert P. J. Day" , openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:44:19 +0000 Message-ID: <3409560.zPX7xbNTKL@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.9.3 (Linux/3.5.0-18-generic; KDE/4.9.3; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <5097983.bapmtWeVbY@helios> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: some simple questions/observations about package groups X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:58:51 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Thursday 29 November 2012 06:58:02 Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Paul Eggleton wrote: > > On Wednesday 28 November 2012 15:27:58 Chris Larson wrote: > > > Also, to comment on something tangentially related from a different > > > thread, > > > technically the PACKAGE_GROUP_ variables were the first to use the term > > > as > > > far as I'm aware. *tasks* were then renamed to use that name as well, > > > which > > > is where a bunch of the confusion probably got introduced. > > > > I did mention that: > > > PACKAGE_GROUP_* actually came first as a way to > > > define items for IMAGE_FEATURES that map to one or more packages, and > > > I'm > > > not sure the name choice was a particularly good one - I wonder if it > > > would be worth considering renaming it to something like > > > IMAGE_FEATURE_PACKAGES in order to avoid confusion, although obviously > > > every rename like this has a cost associated. > > before i forgot all of this, i lashed together this wiki page for my > own benefit so i'd have some examples to show students: > > http://www.crashcourse.ca/wiki/index.php/OE_package_groups > > it's admittedly in rough form and could use some polishing but it will > do for now. feedback? errors? You're describing those things defined by PACKAGE_GROUP_* as package groups, which I would strongly advise against. I know the naming of PACKAGE_GROUP_* suggests that the two are part of the same thing but they really aren't. Most of this page apart from section 5 is actually talking about IMAGE_FEATURES and should be reworded as such if you want to reduce confusion rather than increasing it. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre