Re: [OE-core] why "PREFERRED_PROVIDER_udev" and not "PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/udev"?

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

On Tue, 2021-08-31 at 04:27 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2021, Khem Raj wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 12:52 AM Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   i was going to extend section 3.3.17, "Using Virtual Providers",
> > > with an intro example using "udev" until i realized that that example
> > > doesn't use the "virtual/" notation. so ... why not? is there some
> > > distinction between other components that use the "virtual/" prefix,
> > > but a reason that one does not specify:
> > > 
> > >   PROVIDES = "virtual/udev"
> > > 
> > > rather than just:
> > > 
> > >   PROVIDES = "udev"
> > > 
> > > and then use the corresponding PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/udev
> > > notation?
> > 
> > we also have VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_dev_manager which spans across systemd to mdev
> > so I guess we could but perhaps we already have this functionality
> 
>   a followup, perhaps silly question -- is there anything special
> about the "virtual/" prefix in the sense of being a provider? i mean,
> other than being more aesthetically obvious?

Not really, it just signifies particular groups like the libc example I mention
in another mail.

Cheers,

Richard