Re: RFC: Maintain backwards compatibility or not for module-base.bbclass

[Phil Blundell <pb@pbcl.net>]

On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 14:58 +0100, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> So, here I am now. I do not know who else use the 
> do_make_scripts() function from module-base.bbclass and in what 
> way, and whether restructuring the functionality into the new 
> kernel-scripts.bbclass without maintaining backwards 
> compatibility would be a problem. If you know anything about 
> this, please let me know.

I'm not entirely clear why you couldn't maintain compatibility by moving
the task in question to a new class but keeping its name the same (i.e.
refrain from renaming "do_make_scripts" to "do_kernel_scripts") and
having module-base.bbclass simply inherit the newly-added class.  That
seems like it ought to be fairly straightforward and uncontroversial.

That said, though, I don't think there is any pressing need to maintain
backwards compatibility around module-base.bbclass.  In fact, I think it
would probably be fine for module-base.bbclass to simply go away
altogether and have its functionality subsumed into module.bbclass; the
split between those two classes is mostly a relic of yesteryear and I
can't think of any good purpose that it serves nowadays.  So I would be
happy enough to see that (and the tangly mess that is the kernel classes
in general) cleaned up irrespective of what happens with
do_make_scripts.

p.