From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [80.91.229.2] (helo=ciao.gmane.org) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MHZKx-0005Wy-Pw for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:20:39 +0200 Received: from root by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1MHZAg-0000c9-CX for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:10:02 +0000 Received: from s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl ([85.145.118.37]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:10:02 +0000 Received: from k.kooi by s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:10:02 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org From: Koen Kooi Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:06:18 +0200 Message-ID: References: <4593EC5C-D89E-4947-AA92-3AD423A196B5@mac.com> <4A3A8348.8080502@balister.org> <20090618230514.GP15477@smtp.west.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1pre) Gecko/20090610 Shredder/3.0b3pre In-Reply-To: <20090618230514.GP15477@smtp.west.cox.net> Sender: news Subject: Re: Patch for libfann-2.0.0 recipe X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:20:40 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 19-06-09 01:05, Tom Rini wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 08:24:29PM +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: >> On 18-06-09 20:11, Philip Balister wrote: >>> Koen Kooi wrote: >>>> On 18-06-09 18:52, Otavio Salvador wrote: >>>>> Hello Koen, >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Koen Kooi >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> PR = "r01" >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't set PR to that. >>>>> >>>>> I believe that most people prefer to always have PR field included; >>>>> obviously it ought to be PR = "r1" or PR = "r0" but it is harder to >>>>> forget to update it when it shows in the recipe. >>>> >>>> That's nonsense. Not setting PR = "r0" in recipes makes maintenance a >>>> lot easier, e.g. forcing rebuild or all xorg libs. If every recipe was >>>> already using INC_PR, I might agree with you, but since that isn't the >>>> case adding PR = "r0" is creating more work. >>> >>> Can you explain this a little clearer? I know a number of people on the >>> list feel like Otavio and it would be really helpful for people to >>> understand what the downside is to starting with PR = "r0" instead of >>> leaving it out. >> >> Suppose you want to bump PR on every xorg lib recipe, do you want to >> edit 70 recipes or do you only want to edit 1 .inc file and 3 recipes? >> If you're in the 'edit 70 recipes' crowd, add PR = "r0" to all recipes >> in OE. If not, leave it out, bitbake defaults to it anyway. >> Also, does anyone remember how much pain we had when adding ${PN}-dbg >> into the default PACKAGES only to discover that lots of recipes were >> needlessly copying defaults? > > But there's no .inc file here. How about saying: > - Adding an .inc file MUST switch all the recipes now using it to INC_PR > - If you're modifying recipes that really should be INC_PR, make them > INC_PR while you're in there (the 70 xorg lib recipes not using INC_PR > today for example). > - New recipes that also create a .inc must set INC_PR = "r0" / PR = > "${INC_PR}.0" > - New recipes that are just a single .bb must set PR = "r0" > > The arguement against "leave it out, bitbake defaults to it anyway." is > that "once you make a change it's easier to forget to bump PR/INC_PR if > it's not staring you in the face". Shall we start putting every var in a recipe then? Setting vars to their default is just bloat and wastes parse time.