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 E68727026E for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 15:25:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [69.196.158.250] (port=46098 helo=crashcourse.ca) by astoria.ccjclearline.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X4tkr-0004jr-7c; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:25:57 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 11:25:48 -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: should list of "Variable Flags" include "fakeroot"? 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: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 15:26:04 -0000 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323328-928502733-1404919557=:10635" --8323328-928502733-1404919557=:10635 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Wed, 9 Jul 2014, Christopher Larson wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: >   user manual, "3.6 Variable Flags" includes "fakeroot" as one of the > numerous flags, but that section claims that all of those flags can be > set using the standard variable syntax. but IIRC, fakeroot is set as > an *attribute* on tasks these days, as in: > >   fakeroot tar_sdk() { > > so how should that entry be worded/reworded? unless i'm misreading > something. > > > It likely shouldn't be mentioned as a flag. The fact that it's a > flag internally is a bitbake implementation detail that likely isn't > something they need to be aware of, in my personal opinion, anyway. that's the way i read it ... all the underlying support code still treats it as a "flag", but since i see no usage of it with the flag syntax, i'll just submit a patch to delete it from the flag list, assuming it's discussed adequately elsewhere. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ======================================================================== --8323328-928502733-1404919557=:10635--