From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pd0-f177.google.com (mail-pd0-f177.google.com [209.85.192.177]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30C2E71044; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 15:41:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pd0-f177.google.com with SMTP id r10so13745647pdi.8 for ; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 08:41:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=P4NEeI0vq/ibP9vxt2X+snNlI5MKg6LSCUl+pHuuJRg=; b=1CXqSHuH2mLIBSUyBDiYjvlBQYl9URpW5Y6QQDpYys5QRAsvNhU8tmD5OJfWZbDzd0 DOOyxKWyJ73+sqOA0vVp1oGnabPgHhV47WDnq7wCzq2e69735oySKrEIMCPJb8lCkVG+ 6KBIdGfQioofO7Vm6glD+cVbt6fDXA83RBiKi9evd8pgTAOyvAa3rpbbyNk0cINMEcnp ajPXTgbYvlwpHWCN2J44hc1T11G+wXCvg1AVpdJ+FQBccbR0OEq95wTCCjYZ8sau+0u8 YjN16nWN2rlk42pd0yUpZoOJVmM4vgW0P6bIsdN+OIoUDCu2gaASBr4ZTpI8OA32T8xm +wcg== X-Received: by 10.66.155.2 with SMTP id vs2mr9857276pab.60.1409845305154; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 08:41:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:c:9380:601:9d66:e68f:e0f4:6f0b? ([2601:c:9380:601:9d66:e68f:e0f4:6f0b]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qy1sm2000313pbc.27.2014.09.04.08.41.42 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Sep 2014 08:41:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5408882C.6020506@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 08:41:32 -0700 From: akuster808 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Yang , openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org, OE-core References: <54087F3F.2040103@windriver.com> In-Reply-To: <54087F3F.2040103@windriver.com> Subject: Re: [oe] Style issue for recipes X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 04 Sep 2014 15:41:49 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 09/04/2014 08:03 AM, Robert Yang wrote: > > On 09/04/2014 10:12 PM, Burton, Ross wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Quick question of style for the community to bikeshed on: in the >> general case should recipes be split into foo_1.2.bb and foo.inc, or >> should they only split to bb/inc if there are multiple versions and >> generally there should just be foo_1.2.bb. > > I think that put the constants in .inc is helpful for upgrading, for > example, the SUMMARY, DESCRIPTION, HOMEPAGE, SECTION, inherit and so on, > they are unlikely to change when upgrade. This is the same reason why I have split a bb into two parts when I submit upgrades. I feel it makes reviewing easier the next time a package gets upgraded. Trying to find the actual changes between a file being deleted and the new one being added might lead to missing something. If there are unintentional consequence by doing this, that is a problem. - Armin > // Robert > >> >> Specifically I'm looking at the libunwind patch for oe-core (moving >> from meta-oe) which adds libunwind_1.1.bb and libunwind.inc. >> Personally I feel that splitting them up complicates packaging and >> should only be done if there's actually multiple versions being used. >> >> Ross >> From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pd0-f177.google.com (mail-pd0-f177.google.com [209.85.192.177]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30C2E71044; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 15:41:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pd0-f177.google.com with SMTP id r10so13745647pdi.8 for ; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 08:41:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=P4NEeI0vq/ibP9vxt2X+snNlI5MKg6LSCUl+pHuuJRg=; b=1CXqSHuH2mLIBSUyBDiYjvlBQYl9URpW5Y6QQDpYys5QRAsvNhU8tmD5OJfWZbDzd0 DOOyxKWyJ73+sqOA0vVp1oGnabPgHhV47WDnq7wCzq2e69735oySKrEIMCPJb8lCkVG+ 6KBIdGfQioofO7Vm6glD+cVbt6fDXA83RBiKi9evd8pgTAOyvAa3rpbbyNk0cINMEcnp ajPXTgbYvlwpHWCN2J44hc1T11G+wXCvg1AVpdJ+FQBccbR0OEq95wTCCjYZ8sau+0u8 YjN16nWN2rlk42pd0yUpZoOJVmM4vgW0P6bIsdN+OIoUDCu2gaASBr4ZTpI8OA32T8xm +wcg== X-Received: by 10.66.155.2 with SMTP id vs2mr9857276pab.60.1409845305154; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 08:41:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:c:9380:601:9d66:e68f:e0f4:6f0b? ([2601:c:9380:601:9d66:e68f:e0f4:6f0b]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qy1sm2000313pbc.27.2014.09.04.08.41.42 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Sep 2014 08:41:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5408882C.6020506@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 08:41:32 -0700 From: akuster808 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Yang , openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org, OE-core References: <54087F3F.2040103@windriver.com> In-Reply-To: <54087F3F.2040103@windriver.com> Subject: Re: [OE-core] Style issue for recipes X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 15:41:49 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 09/04/2014 08:03 AM, Robert Yang wrote: > > On 09/04/2014 10:12 PM, Burton, Ross wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Quick question of style for the community to bikeshed on: in the >> general case should recipes be split into foo_1.2.bb and foo.inc, or >> should they only split to bb/inc if there are multiple versions and >> generally there should just be foo_1.2.bb. > > I think that put the constants in .inc is helpful for upgrading, for > example, the SUMMARY, DESCRIPTION, HOMEPAGE, SECTION, inherit and so on, > they are unlikely to change when upgrade. This is the same reason why I have split a bb into two parts when I submit upgrades. I feel it makes reviewing easier the next time a package gets upgraded. Trying to find the actual changes between a file being deleted and the new one being added might lead to missing something. If there are unintentional consequence by doing this, that is a problem. - Armin > // Robert > >> >> Specifically I'm looking at the libunwind patch for oe-core (moving >> from meta-oe) which adds libunwind_1.1.bb and libunwind.inc. >> Personally I feel that splitting them up complicates packaging and >> should only be done if there's actually multiple versions being used. >> >> Ross >>