Re: [bitbake-devel] [PATCH 0/3] Remove bb.fetch compatibility shim module

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

On Fri, 2026-08-21 at 17:26 +0000, Chris Laplante via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> 
> > On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 at 19:06, Chris Laplante via lists.openembedded.org
> > <chris.laplante=agilent.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
> > > fetch2 replaced fetch a long time ago (2012) so I argue it is time to
> > > say goodbye the bb.fetch shim.
> > 
> > Why not instead rename fetch2 to fetch and drop the unneeded '2'? Is there a
> > reason to keep the number?
> 
> I thought about it, but I'd bet 'fetch2' is more prevalent than
> 'fetch' in third-party layers. We also document the naming choice:
> https://docs.yoctoproject.org/bitbake/bitbake-user-manual/bitbake-user-manual-fetching.html#file-download-support
> . So I think it would result in breaking a bunch of layers. Whereas
> if people are still using bb.fetch, we can point to the manual if
> they complain. 
> 
> That being said, I'm not opposed to going the 'fetch' route if people
> prefer it.  

I'd probably lean towards moving to "bb.fetch" but leaving fetch2
working for a short while as things get updated. The "2" is fairly
meaningless.

The key question is whether we'd ever have a fetch3 but I suspect we'd
handle things differently with fetcher changes than that...

Cheers,

Richard