From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.pbcl.net ([88.198.119.4] helo=hetzner.pbcl.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QOtBN-0005Xb-BZ for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 24 May 2011 17:06:08 +0200 Received: from cambridge.roku.com ([81.142.160.137] helo=[172.30.1.145]) by hetzner.pbcl.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QOt8U-0002SQ-4Q for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 24 May 2011 17:03:06 +0200 From: Phil Blundell To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer In-Reply-To: <1306246595.3424.932.camel@rex> References: <1306245860-12820-1-git-send-email-koen@dominion.thruhere.net> <1306246595.3424.932.camel@rex> Organization: Phil Blundell Consulting Ltd Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 16:03:05 +0100 Message-ID: <1306249385.2525.203.camel@phil-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] bitbake.conf: make OVERRIDES match what people expect 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: Tue, 24 May 2011 15:06:09 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 15:16 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > I've been thinking through the different use cases and briefly talked > with Koen offlist about this. I think the revised order makes sense with > what users would expect and am happy to remove local and fail-fast as > overrides since we don't have people using them (local is pretty > weak/useless and fail-fast has only ever been used by gcc recipes > afaik). I've certainly found local useful in the past, though admittedly that might have been in the days when it was the highest rather than lowest priority OVERRIDE. You might be right that it isn't a great deal of use as it stands. I agree that fail-fast should probably go away, but there is an existing reference to it in gcc-cross_csl-arm-2008q1.bb and I think the patch that removes the OVERRIDE should probably address that usage at the same time. What's "forcevariable" for? I don't think we ever had that in oe, and there don't seem to be any obvious users of it in oe-core either. p.