From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.173.237] helo=tim.rpsys.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QOtGF-00070B-J2 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 24 May 2011 17:11:07 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p4OF86ub021181 for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 16:08:06 +0100 Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 20707-05 for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 16:08:02 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p4OF7xGq021175 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 16:07:59 +0100 From: Richard Purdie To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer In-Reply-To: <1306249385.2525.203.camel@phil-desktop> References: <1306245860-12820-1-git-send-email-koen@dominion.thruhere.net> <1306246595.3424.932.camel@rex> <1306249385.2525.203.camel@phil-desktop> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 16:07:55 +0100 Message-ID: <1306249675.3424.936.camel@rex> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net 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 15:11:07 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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