Re: [PATCH] Reverse the order of OVERRIDES

[Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com>]

Khem Raj wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Chris Larson <kergoth@gmail.com> wrote:
>> From: Chris Larson <chris_larson@mentor.com>
>>
>> Given the current implementation of OVERRIDES in bitbake, the variable is
>> expected to contain elements in the order least specific to most specific,
>> however, our current usage of it does not match that.  As one example, "local"
>> is supposed to always be the most specific override, yet currently it's the
>> least specific.  As another example, currently the target architecture is seen
>> as more specific than the machine, which is also clearly wrong.
>>
>> It becomes clear that a reversal of the current value will bring us to a more
>> sane behavior, and avoids the need for the dual overrides hack mentioned in
>> the comments, so clean those up as well.
>>
>> This also introduces a MACHINE_OVERRIDES variable as a generic mechanism to
>> inject overrides elements which are more specific than the distro but less
>> specific than the machine, which is where things like MACHINE_CLASS or
>> SOC_FAMILY or the like would go.  This variable is *space* separated, to make
>> it easier and more convenient to assemble the variable incrementally, and it's
>> then translated to : separated when used in OVERRIDES.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chris Larson <chris_larson@mentor.com>
> 
> both things look nice to me. We might need to document MACHINE_OVERRIDES though.

Yes, no new variables without updating the docs.

-- 
Tom Rini
Mentor Graphics Corporation