From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UKYIx-0001vH-6J for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:09:03 +0100 Received: from azsmga002.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.35]) by azsmga102.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2013 10:52:02 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,913,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="219101279" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.255.13.152]) by AZSMGA002.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2013 10:52:01 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: Phil Blundell Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:52 +0000 Message-ID: <6500457.3vgtoKXQDv@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.10.1 (Linux/3.5.0-26-generic; KDE/4.10.1; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <1364318752.6320.27.camel@phil-desktop.brightsign> References: <5482882.4phbAeRO1n@helios> <1364318752.6320.27.camel@phil-desktop.brightsign> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] rm_work.bbclass: inhibit rm_work per recipe X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:09:07 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Tuesday 26 March 2013 17:25:52 Phil Blundell wrote: > This doesn't seem (at the risk of invoking an unintended metaphor) > entirely black or white. Maybe it should just be "RM_WORK_EXCEPTIONS" > or something. "exception" has another meaning to my mind. I've sent out a patch to change it to RM_WORK_EXCLUDE. > Of course, you can get the same effect in your distro configuration by > saying: > > RM_WORK = "rm_work" > RM_WORK_pn-icu-native = "" > INHERIT += "${RM_WORK}" > > so I must admit to being slightly ambivalent about whether the extra > syntactic sugar is all that valuable. True, that works; I think having an explicit variable makes it easier to understand what's going on though and is a little harder to typo and have your work removed when you didn't want it to be ;) > And then again you can always use rm_old_work instead. :-) I'm sure this has come up before, but is rm_old_work something we ought to have in OE-Core? Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre