any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

[Robert P. J. Day]

  a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems
like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to
finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make
the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the
proper use of the word "task" these days.

  thoughts?

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: [oe] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

[Otavio Salvador]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
<rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
>
>   a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
> backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems
> like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to
> finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make
> the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the
> proper use of the word "task" these days.

I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing
list (added in Cc)

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

Re: any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

[Otavio Salvador]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
<rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
>
>   a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
> backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems
> like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to
> finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make
> the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the
> proper use of the word "task" these days.

I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing
list (added in Cc)

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

Re: [oe] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

[Paul Eggleton]

On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
> 
> <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> >   a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
> > 
> > backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems
> > like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to
> > finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make
> > the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the
> > proper use of the word "task" these days.
> 
> I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing
> list (added in Cc)

I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to keep these 
indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a limit to how long they 
should stay around in OE-Core. They can always be preserved in bbappends for 
those that do want to keep them.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [OE-core] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

[Paul Eggleton]

On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
> 
> <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> >   a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
> > 
> > backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems
> > like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to
> > finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make
> > the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the
> > proper use of the word "task" these days.
> 
> I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing
> list (added in Cc)

I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to keep these 
indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a limit to how long they 
should stay around in OE-Core. They can always be preserved in bbappends for 
those that do want to keep them.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [oe] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Paul Eggleton wrote:

> On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
> >
> > <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > >   a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
> > >
> > > backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems
> > > like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to
> > > finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make
> > > the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the
> > > proper use of the word "task" these days.
> >
> > I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing
> > list (added in Cc)
>
> I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to
> keep these indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a
> limit to how long they should stay around in OE-Core. They can
> always be preserved in bbappends for those that do want to keep
> them.

  i can submit a patch for that later today if no one objects.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: [OE-core] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Paul Eggleton wrote:

> On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
> >
> > <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > >   a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
> > >
> > > backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems
> > > like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to
> > > finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make
> > > the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the
> > > proper use of the word "task" these days.
> >
> > I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing
> > list (added in Cc)
>
> I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to
> keep these indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a
> limit to how long they should stay around in OE-Core. They can
> always be preserved in bbappends for those that do want to keep
> them.

  i can submit a patch for that later today if no one objects.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: [oe] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Paul Eggleton wrote:

> On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
> >
> > <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > >   a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
> > >
> > > backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems
> > > like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to
> > > finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make
> > > the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the
> > > proper use of the word "task" these days.
> >
> > I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing
> > list (added in Cc)
>
> I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to
> keep these indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a
> limit to how long they should stay around in OE-Core. They can
> always be preserved in bbappends for those that do want to keep
> them.

  getting rid of all that "task-core" stuff in packagegroups looks
pretty easy, except for this snippet in
packagegroup-core-full-cmdline.bb:

    packages = d.getVar("PACKAGES", True).split()
    for pkg in packages:
        if pkg.endswith('-dev'):
            mapped = namemap.get(pkg[:-4], None)
            if mapped:
                mapped += '-dev'
        elif pkg.endswith('-dbg'):
            mapped = namemap.get(pkg[:-4], None)
            if mapped:
                mapped += '-dbg'
        else:
            mapped = namemap.get(pkg, None)

        if mapped:
            oldtaskname = mapped.replace("packagegroup-core", "task-core")
            mapstr = " %s %s" % (mapped, oldtaskname)
            d.appendVar("RPROVIDES_%s" % pkg, mapstr)
            d.appendVar("RREPLACES_%s" % pkg, mapstr)
            d.appendVar("RCONFLICTS_%s" % pkg, mapstr)
}

  would one simply delete that last "if mapped:" conditional in its
entirety? or what?

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: [OE-core] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Paul Eggleton wrote:

> On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
> >
> > <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > >   a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
> > >
> > > backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems
> > > like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to
> > > finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make
> > > the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the
> > > proper use of the word "task" these days.
> >
> > I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing
> > list (added in Cc)
>
> I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to
> keep these indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a
> limit to how long they should stay around in OE-Core. They can
> always be preserved in bbappends for those that do want to keep
> them.

  getting rid of all that "task-core" stuff in packagegroups looks
pretty easy, except for this snippet in
packagegroup-core-full-cmdline.bb:

    packages = d.getVar("PACKAGES", True).split()
    for pkg in packages:
        if pkg.endswith('-dev'):
            mapped = namemap.get(pkg[:-4], None)
            if mapped:
                mapped += '-dev'
        elif pkg.endswith('-dbg'):
            mapped = namemap.get(pkg[:-4], None)
            if mapped:
                mapped += '-dbg'
        else:
            mapped = namemap.get(pkg, None)

        if mapped:
            oldtaskname = mapped.replace("packagegroup-core", "task-core")
            mapstr = " %s %s" % (mapped, oldtaskname)
            d.appendVar("RPROVIDES_%s" % pkg, mapstr)
            d.appendVar("RREPLACES_%s" % pkg, mapstr)
            d.appendVar("RCONFLICTS_%s" % pkg, mapstr)
}

  would one simply delete that last "if mapped:" conditional in its
entirety? or what?

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: [oe] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

[Paul Eggleton]

On Monday 14 July 2014 06:31:18 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
> > > 
> > > <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > > >   a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
> > > > 
> > > > backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems
> > > > like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to
> > > > finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make
> > > > the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the
> > > > proper use of the word "task" these days.
> > > 
> > > I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing
> > > list (added in Cc)
> > 
> > I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to
> > keep these indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a
> > limit to how long they should stay around in OE-Core. They can
> > always be preserved in bbappends for those that do want to keep
> > them.
> 
>   getting rid of all that "task-core" stuff in packagegroups looks
> pretty easy, except for this snippet in
> packagegroup-core-full-cmdline.bb:
> 
>     packages = d.getVar("PACKAGES", True).split()
>     for pkg in packages:
>         if pkg.endswith('-dev'):
>             mapped = namemap.get(pkg[:-4], None)
>             if mapped:
>                 mapped += '-dev'
>         elif pkg.endswith('-dbg'):
>             mapped = namemap.get(pkg[:-4], None)
>             if mapped:
>                 mapped += '-dbg'
>         else:
>             mapped = namemap.get(pkg, None)
> 
>         if mapped:
>             oldtaskname = mapped.replace("packagegroup-core", "task-core")
>             mapstr = " %s %s" % (mapped, oldtaskname)
>             d.appendVar("RPROVIDES_%s" % pkg, mapstr)
>             d.appendVar("RREPLACES_%s" % pkg, mapstr)
>             d.appendVar("RCONFLICTS_%s" % pkg, mapstr)
> }
> 
>   would one simply delete that last "if mapped:" conditional in its
> entirety? or what?

Well the packagegroup-core-full-cmdline rename was relatively recent (March), 
so it would be a bit early to remove that as well. You'd need to cut out just 
the "oldtaskname" (and corresponding "%s") bit.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [OE-core] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

[Paul Eggleton]

On Monday 14 July 2014 06:31:18 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
> > > 
> > > <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > > >   a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
> > > > 
> > > > backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems
> > > > like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to
> > > > finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make
> > > > the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the
> > > > proper use of the word "task" these days.
> > > 
> > > I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing
> > > list (added in Cc)
> > 
> > I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to
> > keep these indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a
> > limit to how long they should stay around in OE-Core. They can
> > always be preserved in bbappends for those that do want to keep
> > them.
> 
>   getting rid of all that "task-core" stuff in packagegroups looks
> pretty easy, except for this snippet in
> packagegroup-core-full-cmdline.bb:
> 
>     packages = d.getVar("PACKAGES", True).split()
>     for pkg in packages:
>         if pkg.endswith('-dev'):
>             mapped = namemap.get(pkg[:-4], None)
>             if mapped:
>                 mapped += '-dev'
>         elif pkg.endswith('-dbg'):
>             mapped = namemap.get(pkg[:-4], None)
>             if mapped:
>                 mapped += '-dbg'
>         else:
>             mapped = namemap.get(pkg, None)
> 
>         if mapped:
>             oldtaskname = mapped.replace("packagegroup-core", "task-core")
>             mapstr = " %s %s" % (mapped, oldtaskname)
>             d.appendVar("RPROVIDES_%s" % pkg, mapstr)
>             d.appendVar("RREPLACES_%s" % pkg, mapstr)
>             d.appendVar("RCONFLICTS_%s" % pkg, mapstr)
> }
> 
>   would one simply delete that last "if mapped:" conditional in its
> entirety? or what?

Well the packagegroup-core-full-cmdline rename was relatively recent (March), 
so it would be a bit early to remove that as well. You'd need to cut out just 
the "oldtaskname" (and corresponding "%s") bit.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [oe] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Paul Eggleton wrote:

> On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
> >
> > <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > >   a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
> > >
> > > backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems
> > > like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to
> > > finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make
> > > the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the
> > > proper use of the word "task" these days.
> >
> > I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing
> > list (added in Cc)
>
> I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to
> keep these indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a
> limit to how long they should stay around in OE-Core. They can
> always be preserved in bbappends for those that do want to keep
> them.

  one more (general) question about this ... there's a fair bit of
this task/packagegroup backward compatibility stuff under the meta-oe
layer as well. i assume that patches to the meta-oe layer should still
be posted to this list, but have a subject line of:

  [meta-oe][PATCH] ...

correct? as in, two separate patches.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: [OE-core] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Paul Eggleton wrote:

> On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
> >
> > <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > >   a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
> > >
> > > backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems
> > > like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to
> > > finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make
> > > the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the
> > > proper use of the word "task" these days.
> >
> > I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing
> > list (added in Cc)
>
> I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to
> keep these indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a
> limit to how long they should stay around in OE-Core. They can
> always be preserved in bbappends for those that do want to keep
> them.

  one more (general) question about this ... there's a fair bit of
this task/packagegroup backward compatibility stuff under the meta-oe
layer as well. i assume that patches to the meta-oe layer should still
be posted to this list, but have a subject line of:

  [meta-oe][PATCH] ...

correct? as in, two separate patches.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: [oe] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

[Paul Eggleton]

On Monday 14 July 2014 07:39:23 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
> > > 
> > > <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > > >   a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
> > > > 
> > > > backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems
> > > > like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to
> > > > finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make
> > > > the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the
> > > > proper use of the word "task" these days.
> > > 
> > > I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing
> > > list (added in Cc)
> > 
> > I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to
> > keep these indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a
> > limit to how long they should stay around in OE-Core. They can
> > always be preserved in bbappends for those that do want to keep
> > them.
> 
>   one more (general) question about this ... there's a fair bit of
> this task/packagegroup backward compatibility stuff under the meta-oe
> layer as well. i assume that patches to the meta-oe layer should still
> be posted to this list, but have a subject line of:
> 
>   [meta-oe][PATCH] ...
> 
> correct? as in, two separate patches.

To be clear (since we're cross-posted to two lists in this thread) OE-Core 
patches go to the openembedded-core list, meta-oe patches to the openembedded-
devel list.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [OE-core] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

[Paul Eggleton]

On Monday 14 July 2014 07:39:23 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
> > > 
> > > <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > > >   a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
> > > > 
> > > > backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems
> > > > like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to
> > > > finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make
> > > > the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the
> > > > proper use of the word "task" these days.
> > > 
> > > I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing
> > > list (added in Cc)
> > 
> > I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to
> > keep these indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a
> > limit to how long they should stay around in OE-Core. They can
> > always be preserved in bbappends for those that do want to keep
> > them.
> 
>   one more (general) question about this ... there's a fair bit of
> this task/packagegroup backward compatibility stuff under the meta-oe
> layer as well. i assume that patches to the meta-oe layer should still
> be posted to this list, but have a subject line of:
> 
>   [meta-oe][PATCH] ...
> 
> correct? as in, two separate patches.

To be clear (since we're cross-posted to two lists in this thread) OE-Core 
patches go to the openembedded-core list, meta-oe patches to the openembedded-
devel list.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [oe] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Paul Eggleton wrote:

> On Monday 14 July 2014 07:39:23 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > > On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
> > > >
> > > > <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > > > >   a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
> > > > >
> > > > > backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems
> > > > > like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to
> > > > > finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make
> > > > > the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the
> > > > > proper use of the word "task" these days.
> > > >
> > > > I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing
> > > > list (added in Cc)
> > >
> > > I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to
> > > keep these indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a
> > > limit to how long they should stay around in OE-Core. They can
> > > always be preserved in bbappends for those that do want to keep
> > > them.
> >
> >   one more (general) question about this ... there's a fair bit of
> > this task/packagegroup backward compatibility stuff under the meta-oe
> > layer as well. i assume that patches to the meta-oe layer should still
> > be posted to this list, but have a subject line of:
> >
> >   [meta-oe][PATCH] ...
> >
> > correct? as in, two separate patches.
>
> To be clear (since we're cross-posted to two lists in this thread)
> OE-Core patches go to the openembedded-core list, meta-oe patches to
> the openembedded- devel list.

  ah, gotcha, will fix.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: [OE-core] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Paul Eggleton wrote:

> On Monday 14 July 2014 07:39:23 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > > On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
> > > >
> > > > <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > > > >   a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
> > > > >
> > > > > backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems
> > > > > like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to
> > > > > finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make
> > > > > the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the
> > > > > proper use of the word "task" these days.
> > > >
> > > > I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing
> > > > list (added in Cc)
> > >
> > > I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to
> > > keep these indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a
> > > limit to how long they should stay around in OE-Core. They can
> > > always be preserved in bbappends for those that do want to keep
> > > them.
> >
> >   one more (general) question about this ... there's a fair bit of
> > this task/packagegroup backward compatibility stuff under the meta-oe
> > layer as well. i assume that patches to the meta-oe layer should still
> > be posted to this list, but have a subject line of:
> >
> >   [meta-oe][PATCH] ...
> >
> > correct? as in, two separate patches.
>
> To be clear (since we're cross-posted to two lists in this thread)
> OE-Core patches go to the openembedded-core list, meta-oe patches to
> the openembedded- devel list.

  ah, gotcha, will fix.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================