Re: inc files in recipes

[Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com>]

On 11/19/2010 01:44 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Peeking at flex I was wondering whether we should try to avoid using
> .inc files in recipes especially if there is only one recipe.
>
> flex has:
> frans@frans-desktop:~/yocto/poky-laverne-4.0$ ls meta/recipes-devtools/flex
> flex_2.5.35.bb	flex.inc
>
> Here the inc file could be merged into the bb file.
> This has the advantage of having only a single file, so it is slightly
> easier if you want to read or maintain the recipe.
>
> For recipes with multiple versions (e.g. tar) it might be useful to
> have inc files. It is really a tradeoff between easy access/reading
> and maintainability here.
>
> (and I think for some packages (e.g. gcc) the inc file is actually very useful!)

The fact that there is only one recipe using a particular .inc is (I believe)
a Poky/Yocto design practice.  Once a given recipe is known to work and cause
no other dependencies or regressions, older versions are purged.  This is how
Poky can build a very useful embedded system with only ~1000 recipes, whereas
OE has terrible bloat (IMO) of nearly 8000!

The practice of using a well-crafted .inc file should make it easier to keep
up with the upstream changes.  Often, moving to a new version is as simple as
creating a new recipe with the appropriate PN and you're done.  Very little
duplication of effort, code or rules.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                 |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates              |    Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------