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 1QoGO3-0003zq-Hs; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:56:03 +0200 Received: from azsmga001.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.19]) by azsmga101.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 02 Aug 2011 07:51:40 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,306,1309762800"; d="scan'208";a="34278617" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.255.18.59]) by azsmga001.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 02 Aug 2011 07:51:39 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:51:38 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-8-generic-pae; KDE/4.6.2; i686; ; ) References: <201108021226.34560.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> <201108021521.38404.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201108021551.38368.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> Cc: Chris Larson , bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org, Phil Blundell Subject: Re: [bitbake-devel] Layer priorities influencing default version selection 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, 02 Aug 2011 14:56:03 -0000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday 02 August 2011 15:27:58 Chris Larson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Paul Eggleton > > wrote: > > On Tuesday 02 August 2011 15:14:41 Chris Larson wrote: > >> as config/class priority is > >> determined by order of entries in BBLAYERS, whereas recipe priority is > >> determined by layer.conf. > > > > Is that a good thing though? At the moment I'm not convinced that it is. > > I probably could have worded my reply better. I was pointing out the > fact that the order is determined in two places right now as being one > reason why I agreed with his statement that ordering determined by the > layer isn't ideal. Well, all the same I'd like to have that question answered, maybe that's a different thread. Back to Phil's original point though, I tend to think issues with meta-oe ought to be solved by fixing meta-oe - if some things in meta-oe are causing so much trouble that we have to down-grade the priority of the layer in order to squelch them, that's bad. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre