From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from hetzner.pbcl.net (mail.pbcl.net [88.198.119.4]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BD346D899 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 21:39:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blundell.swaffham-prior.co.uk ([91.216.112.25] helo=[192.168.114.4]) by hetzner.pbcl.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W3ued-0003zM-7i; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:39:11 +0100 Message-ID: <1389908340.2467.11.camel@e130.pbcl.net> From: Phil Blundell To: Peter Kjellerstedt Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 21:39:00 +0000 In-Reply-To: References: Organization: Phil Blundell Consulting Ltd X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.5-2+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam_score: -1.0 X-Spam_score_int: -9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "hetzner.pbcl.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: 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. [...] Content analysis details: (-1.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP Cc: "OE Core \(openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org\)" Subject: Re: RFC: Maintain backwards compatibility or not for module-base.bbclass X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 16 Jan 2014 21:39:11 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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.