Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v5 1/7] barebox: add initial support

["Enrico Jörns" <ejo@pengutronix.de>]

Am Mittwoch, dem 11.09.2024 um 12:15 +0200 schrieb Alexander Kanavin:
> On Tue, 10 Sept 2024 at 20:42, Enrico Jörns via lists.openembedded.org
> <ejo=pengutronix.de@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
> 
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/barebox/barebox_2024.08.0.bb
> > @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
> > +require barebox.inc
> > +
> > +SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "b08a762da8d63dd18b4f2d9f5d0a8da001b6e608d1b3eff6dcebc6a2e575d535"
> 
> The checksum should be in barebox-common.inc, so it's not repeated in
> barebox-tools.

I kept it in the version-specific .bb file since this is the only information that would necessarily
change when bumping the PV.

> Is there a reason to set S and B explicitly? They look like defaults to me.

S is the default actually (${BPN}-${PV}). I can omit that.
B defaults to S in bitbake.conf and is only changed by build tool-specific classes.

> Also, is there a need to keep barebox.inc separate? Why not merge that
> into barebox.bb?

Personally, I find it easier to diff recipes when they don't move with every version bump.
Splitting .inc and .bb up is one way to achieve this.

I see a notable number of recipes having a .inc that is required by only a single .bb.
Is there any generic rule when to (not) use a .inc file?

For barebox specifically, it makes the creation of recipes for a custom barebox easier since one can
decide to either .bbappend the existing recipe or just create a new .bb and only require the .inc.

Regards, Enrico

> Alex
> 

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Enrico Jörns                |
Embedded Linux Consulting & Support        | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | Phone: +49-5121-206917-180  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-9    |