Re: [PATCH 03/30] conf/layer.conf: Use .= to append to BBPATH and =+ for BBFILES

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

On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 22:26 -0700, Saul Wold wrote:
> From: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
> 
> Appending to BBPATH gives a definite order to BBLAYERS which
> means paths are preferred in order from left to right.
> 
> [sgw: merged in comment]
> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  meta/conf/layer.conf |   10 +++++++++-
>  1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/meta/conf/layer.conf b/meta/conf/layer.conf
> index 3f63c7d..10a6948 100644
> --- a/meta/conf/layer.conf
> +++ b/meta/conf/layer.conf
> @@ -2,7 +2,15 @@ BBPATH ?= ""
>  # We have a conf and classes directory, add to BBPATH
>  BBPATH .= ":${LAYERDIR}"
>  # We have a packages directory, add to BBFILES
> -BBFILES += "${LAYERDIR}/packages/*/*.bb ${LAYERDIR}/recipes-*/*/*.bb"
> +# packages is still there because metadata_scm.bbclass still uses
> +# it to deduce the repo directory and thats the reason to prepend
> +# to BBFILES here because this class uses the first entry in
> +# BBFILES to calculate the scm base.
> +# since the order of BBFLILES is not that important its acted upon
> +# using BBFILES_PRIORITY we are ok to keep the oe-core BBFILES dir
> +# at top

Er, how about we actually fix metadata_scm.bbclass instead of making the
world more complicated and fragile? :)

I suspect metadata_scm could use the COREBASE variable and be much nicer
code...

Cheers,

Richard