From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1StdkP-0002qD-1g for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:57:53 +0200 Received: from azsmga002.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.35]) by azsmga101.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Jul 2012 04:46:23 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="scan'208";a="126236140" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.121.60]) by AZSMGA002.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Jul 2012 04:46:22 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: "Robert P. J. Day" Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:46:22 +0100 Message-ID: <1783304.g0GBo72QxG@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.8.4 (Linux/3.2.0-26-generic-pae; KDE/4.8.4; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: "bitbake-layers show-overlayed" doesn't match its "help" message X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:57:53 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Tuesday 24 July 2012 05:53:40 Robert P. J. Day wrote: > those two layers have the same priority, but the help suggests that > you'll only see instances of recipes from layers that have a > *different* priority -- not quite true. Agreed - the intent was to try to indicate that the recipes that were "overlayed" were the ones "underneath" but priority is not always the only factor in which one is preferred. I've sent a patch to remove the "confusing" bit of description. > p.s. i'm assuming that overlaid recipes are just a bad idea anyway, > and should be used only in unusual circumstances, yes? Yes; much better to use a bbappend. It's difficult to avoid if you are introducing a newer/older version in your layer, but if it's layer intended for public consumption and is not a distro layer, you should still think twice about doing it. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre