ALLOW_EMPTY versus ALLOW_EMPTY_${PN}? a couple clarifications

ALLOW_EMPTY versus ALLOW_EMPTY_${PN}? a couple clarifications

[Robert P. J. Day]

  just trying to clarify the gory details of the ALLOW_EMPTY setting.
first, across several .bb files, there is a mixture of these two:

ALLOW_EMPTY = "1"
ALLOW_EMPTY_${PN} = "1"

  what's the difference?  what does the first one represent if you're
not specific?  does that cover *all* generated packages?

  next, i assume there's no real value to hardcoding the package name,
as in:

./meta/recipes-multimedia/alsa/alsa-utils_1.0.25.bb:ALLOW_EMPTY_alsa-utils = "1"

(i assume the above could have just used the standard "_${PN}",
right?)

  i think that might be everything for now.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: ALLOW_EMPTY versus ALLOW_EMPTY_${PN}? a couple clarifications

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

W dniu 06.07.2012 15:10, Robert P. J. Day pisze:
> 
>   just trying to clarify the gory details of the ALLOW_EMPTY setting.
> first, across several .bb files, there is a mixture of these two:
> 
> ALLOW_EMPTY = "1"
> ALLOW_EMPTY_${PN} = "1"
> 
>   what's the difference?  what does the first one represent if you're
> not specific?  does that cover *all* generated packages?

Yes, first means "all packages may be empty"

>   next, i assume there's no real value to hardcoding the package name,
> as in:
> 
> ./meta/recipes-multimedia/alsa/alsa-utils_1.0.25.bb:ALLOW_EMPTY_alsa-utils = "1"
> 
> (i assume the above could have just used the standard "_${PN}",
> right?)

${PN} should be in this case.

Re: ALLOW_EMPTY versus ALLOW_EMPTY_${PN}? a couple clarifications

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2012, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:

> W dniu 06.07.2012 15:10, Robert P. J. Day pisze:
> >
> >   just trying to clarify the gory details of the ALLOW_EMPTY setting.
> > first, across several .bb files, there is a mixture of these two:
> >
> > ALLOW_EMPTY = "1"
> > ALLOW_EMPTY_${PN} = "1"
> >
> >   what's the difference?  what does the first one represent if you're
> > not specific?  does that cover *all* generated packages?
>
> Yes, first means "all packages may be empty"

  and just to be clear, that means not just the default packages
(regular, -dev, -doc, etc.) but all additional packages that might be
defined for that recipe?

> >   next, i assume there's no real value to hardcoding the package name,
> > as in:
> >
> > ./meta/recipes-multimedia/alsa/alsa-utils_1.0.25.bb:ALLOW_EMPTY_alsa-utils = "1"
> >
> > (i assume the above could have just used the standard "_${PN}",
> > right?)
>
> ${PN} should be in this case.

  i thought so, just wanted to be sure.  i'm collecting all these
oddities i run across and am compiling my version of an OE "style
guide", which will contain pedantic observations like:

* don't hard-code a package name if you can use ${PN} instead

and

* there's no point setting ${PR} to "r0" since that's the default

  little things like that.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: ALLOW_EMPTY versus ALLOW_EMPTY_${PN}? a couple clarifications

[Richard Purdie]

On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 09:10 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>   just trying to clarify the gory details of the ALLOW_EMPTY setting.
> first, across several .bb files, there is a mixture of these two:
> 
> ALLOW_EMPTY = "1"
> ALLOW_EMPTY_${PN} = "1"
> 
>   what's the difference?  what does the first one represent if you're
> not specific?  does that cover *all* generated packages?

FWIW, a package name should generally be specified. I've just sent a
patch to OE-Core updating the various references.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: ALLOW_EMPTY versus ALLOW_EMPTY_${PN}? a couple clarifications

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 949 bytes --]

Can you please add ALLOW_EMPTY to sanity check like R* variables are now?


On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Richard Purdie <
richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 09:10 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >   just trying to clarify the gory details of the ALLOW_EMPTY setting.
> > first, across several .bb files, there is a mixture of these two:
> >
> > ALLOW_EMPTY = "1"
> > ALLOW_EMPTY_${PN} = "1"
> >
> >   what's the difference?  what does the first one represent if you're
> > not specific?  does that cover *all* generated packages?
>
> FWIW, a package name should generally be specified. I've just sent a
> patch to OE-Core updating the various references.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1524 bytes --]