From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QoFv0-0003EM-HM; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:26:02 +0200 Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 02 Aug 2011 07:21:40 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,306,1309762800"; d="scan'208";a="37078345" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.255.18.59]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 02 Aug 2011 07:21:39 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:21:38 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-8-generic-pae; KDE/4.6.2; i686; ; ) References: <201108021226.34560.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> <1312293167.4325.38.camel@phil-desktop> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201108021521.38404.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> Cc: Chris Larson , Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: [OE-core] Layer priorities influencing default version selection X-BeenThere: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 14:26:02 -0000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday 02 August 2011 15:14:41 Chris Larson wrote: > as config/class priority is > determined by order of entries in BBLAYERS, whereas recipe priority is > determined by layer.conf. Is that a good thing though? At the moment I'm not convinced that it is. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre