Re: [RFC][PATCH] bitbake.conf: make OVERRIDES match what people expect

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

On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 16:03 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> 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.

It was added to poky with the intent of doing what "_local" would have
done before it was broken.

I think its a little safer than using "local" as the override keyword,
I'm open to opinion on whether it should be kept but it probably has
uses.

Cheers,

Richard