isn't "do_install_append_pn-uclibc" partly redundant?

isn't "do_install_append_pn-uclibc" partly redundant?

[Robert P. J. Day]

  perusing recipes for my courseware and ran across this in the listed
file:

meta/recipes-core/uclibc/uclibc.inc:do_install_append_pn-uclibc () {

now, given that the above file is clearly the general include file for
the uclibc package, could the task append definition:

  do_install_append_pn-uclibc () {

not have been written more simply as:

  do_install_append () {

as in, given that this task append is clearly only for the uclibc
package, it seems unnecessary to add a package-specific override. most
other recipes use the second, shorter form, so i was wondering if
there was something subtle about the uclibc recipe that necessitated
the first form.

rday

-- 

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

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

Re: isn't "do_install_append_pn-uclibc" partly redundant? [NEVER MIND]

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2014, Robert P. J. Day wrote:

>
>   perusing recipes for my courseware and ran across this in the listed
> file:
>
> meta/recipes-core/uclibc/uclibc.inc:do_install_append_pn-uclibc () {
>
> now, given that the above file is clearly the general include file for
> the uclibc package, could the task append definition:
>
>   do_install_append_pn-uclibc () {
>
> not have been written more simply as:
>
>   do_install_append () {
>
> as in, given that this task append is clearly only for the uclibc
> package, it seems unnecessary to add a package-specific override. most
> other recipes use the second, shorter form, so i was wondering if
> there was something subtle about the uclibc recipe that necessitated
> the first form.

  oh, wait, i just saw the associated recipe for uclibc-initial, so
the package-specific override in the .inc file for just the uclibc
package now makes sense.

rday

-- 

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

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

Re: isn't "do_install_append_pn-uclibc" partly redundant?

[Christopher Larson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 938 bytes --]

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>
wrote:

> meta/recipes-core/uclibc/uclibc.inc:do_install_append_pn-uclibc () {
>
> now, given that the above file is clearly the general include file for
> the uclibc package, could the task append definition:
>
>   do_install_append_pn-uclibc () {
>
> not have been written more simply as:
>
>   do_install_append () {
>
> as in, given that this task append is clearly only for the uclibc
> package, it seems unnecessary to add a package-specific override. most
> other recipes use the second, shorter form, so i was wondering if
> there was something subtle about the uclibc recipe that necessitated
> the first form.
>

uclibc.inc is included by both uclibc-initial and uclibc.
-- 
Christopher Larson
clarson at kergoth dot com
Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus
Maintainer - Tslib
Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1330 bytes --]