Re: [bitbake-devel] [PATCH] bitbake-setup: replace {THISDIR} token with an explicit keyword

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Fri, 2025-11-07 at 04:32 +0100, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> On Fri 7. Nov 2025 at 1.59, Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > bb-layers-relative maybe?
> > > 
> > > bb-layers-relative-to-this-file is precise but does feel a bit too
> > > unwieldy. Any other options?
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > 
> > > Richard
> > 
> > After I saw Alex' patch for bitbake-setup.schema.json:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/openembedded-core/20251106170815.2439421-1-alex.kanavin@gmail.com/T/#u
> > it made me realize that I had not thought that paths in both 
> > bb-layers and bb-layers-relative are actually relative, just to 
> > different locations. Unfortunately, I think the newly suggested 
> > name is then misleading as it implies that paths in bb-layers 
> > are not relative. :( I now also understand why the longer 
> > bb-layers-relative-to-this-file was originally proposed.
> > 
> > I don't have a good solution for this. The best I can come up 
> > with is to rename them both to, e.g., bb-layers-dir-relative and 
> > bb-layers-file-relative
> 
> I tend to agree. I’d rather call them ‘bb-layers-in-sources’ and ‘bb-
> layers-in-this-dir’. Patch is coming even though I’m technically on
> holiday since midnight. This is important.

I don't agree with "sources" in here.

I think if we call them:

bb-layers

and

bb-layers-file-relative

then this should be ok? I agree we need to get this right.

Cheers,

Richard