From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from astoria.ccjclearline.com (astoria.ccjclearline.com [64.235.106.9]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9784065D6E for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 15:59:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [69.196.158.250] (port=53649 helo=crashcourse.ca) by astoria.ccjclearline.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Wy1DV-00070y-J8; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 11:59:05 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 11:55:23 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" X-X-Sender: rpjday@localhost To: Christopher Larson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LFD 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - astoria.ccjclearline.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.openembedded.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - crashcourse.ca X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Cc: BitBake developer list Subject: Re: distinguishing between bitbake and "higher" layers WRT fetching variables [LONG] X-BeenThere: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussion that advance bitbake development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 15:59:07 -0000 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323328-1773431158-1403279726=:4233" --8323328-1773431158-1403279726=:4233 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Fri, 20 Jun 2014, Christopher Larson wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: >   (note: more annoying pedantry regarding bitbake configuration and > documentation but, if i'm going to explain this to my students, i > really need to understand it completely.) > >   some questions and observations about how bitbake defines some > fetch-related variables as opposed to how those variables are defined > in higher layers such as oe-core and poky. as richard purdie(?) > pointed out recently, the goal should be to document bitbake as > independently as possible from what happens in layers such as oe and > poky, but it seems this is not as clean as it could be. > >   consider first bitbake's current bitbake.conf file. first, can we > agree that this set of variables: > > > Before I dive into the remainder of the email, we should note that > the bitbake.conf in bitbake is never used when you use oe, it's > solely as an example / starting point for other non-oe projects > wanting to use bitbake. Presumably it gets forgotten about when > changes to bitbake itself are made, and so it's fallen behind. oh, i realize that but (i think) my main point was that it seems almost impossible to document bitbake completely stand-alone when almost everyone is going to use it in the context of a higher layer like OE, and there just seem to be unnecessary inconsistencies between bitbake and OE that make the bitbake user manual confusing. more in a bit ... rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ======================================================================== --8323328-1773431158-1403279726=:4233--