From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [143.182.124.37]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA9F61883 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 17:02:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from azsmga001.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.19]) by azsmga102.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Aug 2013 10:02:46 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,795,1367996400"; d="scan'208";a="340236601" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.122.169]) by azsmga001.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Aug 2013 10:02:42 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: Laszlo Papp Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 18:02:41 +0100 Message-ID: <1981575.9KzFInvyxm@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.10.5 (Linux/3.8.0-27-generic; KDE/4.10.5; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <1375351656-12261-1-git-send-email-ross.burton@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][V2] u-boot: state the MACHINE when skipping u-boot 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, 01 Aug 2013 17:02:57 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Thursday 01 August 2013 17:52:13 Laszlo Papp wrote: > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Laszlo Papp wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Burton, Ross > > > > wrote: > > >> On 1 August 2013 17:33, Laszlo Papp wrote: > > >> >> I'm not sure what you meant here. Do you mean a situation where the > > >> >> local.conf says MACHINE=foo and the user also sets MACHINE=foo in > > >> >> the > > >> >> environment? > > >> > > > >> > Yes. > > >> > > >> But there's nothing wrong with the user doing that at all. > > > > > > Why do you think compilers warn in such use cases? Because they cannot > > > > know > > > > > if you are doing something silly, or something unintentional. It might > > > > just > > > > > well be that the user wanted to type something else, but got confused in > > > which case he might get a hard to debug issue later, or even if not > > > > hard, it > > > > > is additional issue due to his. > > > > Please provide the message you preferred so it can be seen and > > discussed. An example might make it easier to get what you really > > mean. > > "Warning: "foo", specified manually on the command line, is the same as in > the /path/to/the/relevant/background/file.stuff file" > > Please do not hang on the grammar as I am a non-native speakers. I'm afraid this is not practical. The ability to specify the value for MACHINE and other variables from the external environment is not just there for folks running bitbake manually from the command line, but also external scripts as well, and they could quite legitimately set it to the same value that has been specified in the configuration file and showing a warning in that case would be undesirable. I'm not sure I understand the value of showing this warning in any case. The system is not going to do anything that the user won't expect - the user specified the value of MACHINE on the command line and that's the value that is being used. The fact that it is the same as what's in the configuration file is incidental. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre