From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2578E003E3 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:14:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Feb 2012 16:14:49 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="scan'208";a="116485301" Received: from unknown (HELO envy.home) ([10.255.14.215]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Feb 2012 16:14:48 -0800 Message-ID: <4F35B2D5.30601@linux.intel.com> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:14:13 -0800 From: Darren Hart User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Jansa References: <9c76056351fe4e2b9537729ffca3b4506b720513.1328135056.git.dvhart@linux.intel.com> <4F2AE4E8.3080809@linux.intel.com> <4F2AFBF7.8010307@linux.intel.com> <1405123.nGGmjXUAYO@helios> <4F306968.9000902@linux.intel.com> <20120207070631.GA3893@jama.jama.net> In-Reply-To: <20120207070631.GA3893@jama.jama.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Cc: Paul Eggleton , yocto@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: [pull-sys940x 2/4] ranpwd: Add ranpwd recipe X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:14:49 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 02/06/2012 11:06 PM, Martin Jansa wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 03:59:36PM -0800, Joshua Lock wrote: >> On 06/02/12 08:17, Paul Eggleton wrote: >>> On Thursday 02 February 2012 13:11:19 Joshua Lock wrote: >>>> Apologies. I'm wrong here. It was PRIORITY which we agreed to drop. >>> >>> It's worth noting however, at the same time PRIORITY removal was discussed it >>> was acknowledged that SECTION was questionable. Logical grouping of >>> recipes/packages is a useful thing but coming up with groupings that are >>> meaningful in all contexts is hard :( >> >> Glad to know my recollection isn't wildly off the mark. >> >> I noticed that there are similar, yet different, SECTION values being >> used. If we opt to keep SECTION I wonder if we should try and >> standardise/sanitise it? > > If there is standardised SECTION variable why not use > recipes-${SECTION}/foo_1.0.bb as we already have couple of recipe-* > directories and it's sometimes hard to decide to which directory > something belongs. > > Or other way around, standartise recipes-* directories and let bitbake > decide SECTION from it (like it does for PV and PN). Brilliant. -- Darren > > Cheers, > >> >> Debian's sections seem like reasonable inspiration? >> http://packages.debian.org/stable/ >> >> I think SECTION is useful for tools like Hob and Narcissus, so I'm in >> favour of keeping them. >> >> Cheers, >> Joshua >> -- >> Joshua Lock >> Yocto Project "Johannes factotum" >> Intel Open Source Technology Centre >> _______________________________________________ >> yocto mailing list >> yocto@yoctoproject.org >> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto > > > > _______________________________________________ > yocto mailing list > yocto@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel