Re: [PATCH] autotools-brokensep: Mark recipes with broken separate build dir support

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 20:13 +0000, Burton, Ross wrote:
> On 27 February 2014 20:06, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:
> >> On 27 February 2014 18:01, Richard Purdie
> >> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>> +inherit autotools
> >>> +B = "${S}"
> >>
> >> Why is this preferable to directly setting B in the recipe, which
> >> seems more obvious to me.
> >
> > I see one benefit for it being easier to grep for; so we know this is
> > one recipe which ought to be fixed and that rely on autotools.
> 
> I'm apprehensive of adding a class whose sole purpose is to set a
> variable that can be set in the recipe itself, and will be another
> class to explain/document for the future.  Grepping for an assignment
> to B is almost as simple too.

I ended up doing it this way as:

a) its easier to change in the recipes than typing the magic B=...
   incantation
b) its easier to search for (sure you can grep B= but how do you know 
   they're autotools recipes? This is particular hard when the inherit 
   is in a common include file
c) it means we can set (and change) policy globally from one place
d) it contains the word "broken" nice and clearly

Cheers,

Richard