From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.chez-thomas.org (hermes.mlbassoc.com [64.234.241.98]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13144E0070C for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 04:23:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix, from userid 1998) id B07B7F81203; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 05:23:08 -0600 (MDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on hermes.chez-thomas.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=4.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 Received: from hermes.chez-thomas.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AE53F811F6; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 05:23:07 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4F69BA1B.8030500@mlbassoc.com> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 05:23:07 -0600 From: Gary Thomas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: yocto@yoctoproject.org References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: setting of BBPATH differs between ref manual and actual layer.conf file 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: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:23:10 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2012-03-21 05:12, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > >> >> admittedly picky but the ref manual here: >> >> http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/current/poky-ref-manual/poky-ref-manual.html#usingpoky-changes-layers >> >> shows a sample setting of BBPATH in yocto's layer.conf: >> >> BBPATH := "${BBPATH}:${LAYERDIR}" >> >> however the actual layer.conf for yocto reads: >> >> BBPATH := "${LAYERDIR}:${BBPATH}" >> >> should the ordering be consistent here? should readers be warned >> about the (admittedly remote) possibility of weirdness if they happen >> to try to include two layers with the same name? is that even >> possible? does any of this even matter? > > i really hate replying to my own posts because i forgot to do > something basic, but i did a quick grep: > > $ grep -r "BBPATH :=" * > documentation/dev-manual/dev-manual-common-tasks.xml: BBPATH := "${LAYERDIR}:${BBPATH}" > documentation/dev-manual/dev-manual-kernel-appendix.xml: BBPATH := "${BBPATH}:${LAYERDIR}" > documentation/bsp-guide/bsp.xml: BBPATH := "${BBPATH}:${LAYERDIR}" > meta-hob/conf/layer.conf:BBPATH := "${BBPATH}:${LAYERDIR}" > meta-skeleton/conf/layer.conf:BBPATH := "${BBPATH}:${LAYERDIR}" > meta-yocto/conf/layer.conf:BBPATH := "${LAYERDIR}:${BBPATH}" > $ > > so there's a mixture of that ordering. if there's no real reason > for that, it should really be consistent so readers don't wonder about > it. Indeed it does matter, as does the order that these statements are processed (which I think is the order the layers are listed in bblayers.conf?) It can matter if two layers contain the same .conf file [at least]. I experienced this when I had two layers with abi_version.conf - actually three: meta, meta-yocto and meta-MINE - and I got very confused when I removed meta-yocto from the mix :-( The ordering of BBPATH isn't as important with recipes as they use the layer priority mechanism, but if you had two layers with identical priorities and recipes, it might matter as well. -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Thomas | Consulting for the MLB Associates | Embedded world ------------------------------------------------------------