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 1THDJ6-0006Z5-Cn for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:35:08 +0200 Received: from elite.brightsigndigital.co.uk ([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 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1THD6g-0007tQ-Re for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:22:18 +0200 From: Phil Blundell To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:22:17 +0100 X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.2- Message-ID: <1348748538.32611.18.camel@phil-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: overuse of bitbake flags considered harmful X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:35:08 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I was mildly amused to discover, the other day, that the output of "bitbake -e rpm | grep PACKAGECONFIG" is not quite as one might na=C3=AFvel= y expect. =20 I guess the right response to this is perhaps that bitbake ought nowadays to find some other way to store its own internal state, since the idiom of using flags is pretty well established in oe-core. p.