From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from starfish.geekisp.com (starfish.geekisp.com [216.168.135.166]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2CB4C71492 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 17:54:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 10786 invoked by uid 1003); 4 Sep 2014 17:54:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.123?) (philip@opensdr.com@71.171.37.28) by mail.geekisp.com with (DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 4 Sep 2014 17:54:49 -0000 Message-ID: <5408A766.5000605@balister.org> Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 13:54:46 -0400 From: Philip Balister User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: 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 17:54:52 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 09/04/2014 01:29 PM, Andreas Müller wrote: > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Burton, Ross wrote: >> On 4 September 2014 15:12, Burton, Ross wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Another argument against widespread inc files: they encourage the >> impression that maintaining multiple versions is just a matter of >> having a .inc file. The moment you start having to put >> version-specific statements into a .bb you've entered a world of pain >> in keeping the .bb files in sync, moving options into the .inc as they >> become used by all versions, and purging old version-specific >> statements. >> >> Ross >> -- > I agree with Ross: It often took me time to find out where > functionality comes from. Inc-files do only make sense for multiple > versions of recipes or if different recipes share same code (only > example I can remember is meta-gnome gvfs/gvfs-gdu-volume-monitor > circular-dependency hack). > > My feeling is that the inc-files are still from classic oe times where > we had multiple versions for many recipes and most can be merged into > recipes without loosing something. The qwt recipe uses an include file and two bb files for qt versus qt-embedded builds. I do not know if this is wise, but it is a case not mentioned here. Philip > > Andreas >