From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Pv9aQ-0002Oy-EE for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:33:02 +0100 Received: from azsmga001.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.19]) by azsmga102.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Mar 2011 06:31:32 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.62,258,1297065600"; d="scan'208";a="396963539" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.17.39]) ([10.255.17.39]) by azsmga001.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Mar 2011 06:31:22 -0800 From: Joshua Lock To: Chris Larson In-Reply-To: References: <4D6E7EB1.5080602@windriver.com> <41F9E0FC-E0A1-4C7F-8999-3E1B53FDDEE1@dominion.thruhere.net> <1299157757.2550.5.camel@scimitar> <1299161111.2550.8.camel@scimitar> Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 14:31:16 +0000 Message-ID: <1299162676.2550.21.camel@scimitar> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 (2.32.1-1.fc14) Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: oe-core cleanup... X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 14:33:02 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 07:21 -0700, Chris Larson wrote: On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Chris Larson wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Joshua Lock wrote: > >> I agree, in fact yesterday I discovered we have the beginnings of such a > >> tool (bitbake-layers) written by Chris. Currently it prints out which > >> recipes are being modified by a .bbappend and .bbappend files for which > >> no recipe exists. > > Note that it also warns about bbappending to a non-preferred version > of a recipe, but not bbappending to the preferred version of the > recipe, to cover the case where a bump of an earlier layer adds a new > version without removing the old. I was trying to catch all the cases > where your local changes might seem "lost" when updating things. Ah, that's a nice feature that I'd missed (I don't have any such recipes in the layers I'm using). > On another note, I was really surprised at just how painless it was to > create a new standalone tool to do this, considering it bypasses much > of the infrastructure which the main bitbake tool uses. There are > definitely still some hiccups in bitbake we should fix to make it > easier, but it wasn't bad at all, which was great to see, and we'll > have to think about what other standalone tools might be useful in the > long term. > Yes indeed. I was pleased when I discovered bitbake-layers and even more pleased when I saw how concise a program it is. I'd love to see a wiki-page or some such where we can collaborate on tools ideas. I'm slowly understanding more and more of BitBake and gaining an increased appreciation of Python so little hack project ideas would be welcome. Cheers, Joshua -- Joshua Lock Yocto Build System Monkey Intel Open Source Technology Centre