From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg0-f53.google.com (mail-pg0-f53.google.com [74.125.83.53]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDB56FFEF for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 09:27:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id q2so522263pgr.0 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 02:27:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lv/UQERCcAUWRlmDQwB/im1FgEhkDa5PfwUv51USzfU=; b=TKDAKZz9vWKJUrmpV2sw+sMu1p0HSliJcs0otX44BIEnqzH2shBP+B+4cxGDC5YaGf fYn6kMCvw8o7lJT6JvK3rVqt4ZFTd4tWB3Z6UuH7n09LxAIarXcDqAqIE731Ry3ZKCvF CV/yvhW2LjQLGpFEdPEvXq9A3ilpz1RIZTNgbrf8tQBOxnZLFeAdLS934wiBrZHLriXA RWYe3ewbaCHfvTjZfZijbF6AcuxridHroow7a4p1eZS8ZEpodr4SvAVybohTW3Wgqh8r 1Y1PE3LoAgFJQTyAzfvNhxSJSH0qKasSTrm+wwQvfBHwIacfeCyXMtz0zrdSqWK+0NkQ wQ+g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lv/UQERCcAUWRlmDQwB/im1FgEhkDa5PfwUv51USzfU=; b=JQY9osGZVtEVy3ISGX54xp/CJ8Bjsz83xFw1qTkO9NsesBE8WS5llk1+4J75raqRhc WUOwGBM4CJxSNqn8MoZokX3mFuD5aGjaYwbbs2UOfAZ58f8N08TR3zxmPJqk8ZMtTa2j wMvkrdATfB17NMp7hQDw+7gPcXDxpiL9Y60qt9hKheL/gwNm4emfy1T8kPkWaPO8QM4n FpUV3LsufUoIL6zFRJb5vz8cGSZX9JoQj4xM2ZDtVQ8+23AkYO2S2/Lraz0TidtOep/6 eeRg1qT5VIax82iOlaFWF4MA3RKaDu7zeb4/0v4hyX447EF7rwYwBict9pN4ritePWqo dMMQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5jSCHuJ9UzmnmHpKy8ZlRevpnWLaZy89D2p0a/+WlA0BgpGADn1 oEjdbn3K7erERV8p X-Received: by 10.84.129.103 with SMTP id 94mr6049678plb.63.1503566849235; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 02:27:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8F93A.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.249.58]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f2sm5643028pgc.17.2017.08.24.02.27.25 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 24 Aug 2017 02:27:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1503566841.3674.6.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Joshua Watt Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 11:27:21 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1496995960.30163.175.camel@intel.com> References: <1496850184.21235.1.camel@gmail.com> <1496912216.6630.225.camel@linuxfoundation.org> <1496930142.8427.2.camel@gmail.com> <1496932400.6630.250.camel@linuxfoundation.org> <1496935714.8427.7.camel@gmail.com> <1496950316.30163.152.camel@intel.com> <1496995960.30163.175.camel@intel.com> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Yocto Compatible 2.0 support code 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, 24 Aug 2017 09:27:28 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 10:12 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > I also get for all recipes (i.e. the error is in the base > configuration): > > meta/conf/bitbake.conf:752: include/require/inherit "conf/target/${TARGET_SYS}.conf" resulted in including "conf/target/x86_64-oe-linux.conf" while parsing. Variables effecting the parameter changed later such that "conf/target/x86_64-refkit-linux.conf" would have been included at the end of the recipe. > > None of these two files exist, so it doesn't make a difference. But is > it really intended that a conf/target/${TARGET_SYS}.conf gets included > that isn't the one for the final TARGET_SYS? That looks like a genuine > bug to me. And Andre McCurdy also came to the same conclusion - see his "[OE-core] [PATCH] bitbake.conf: fix ineffective include conf/target/${TARGET_SYS}.conf" patch. However, that patch IMHO is incomplete, because it doesn't account for ${DISTRO}.conf changing the TARGET_VENDOR part of TARGET_SYS. I'll comment there, too. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.