From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from astoria.ccjclearline.com ([64.235.106.9]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SoGxJ-0003vh-55 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 18:37:01 +0200 Received: from cpec03f0ed08c7f-cm001ac318e826.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com ([99.241.91.63]:45290 helo=crashcourse.ca) by astoria.ccjclearline.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SoGmW-0007CA-Id; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 12:25:52 -0400 Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 12:25:40 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" X-X-Sender: rpjday@oneiric To: Paul Eggleton In-Reply-To: <1803032.sCdKSRoOHk@helios> Message-ID: References: <1803032.sCdKSRoOHk@helios> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - astoria.ccjclearline.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.openembedded.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - crashcourse.ca X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: setting EXTRA_IMAGE_FEATURES explicitly in .bb file can screw things up 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: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 16:37:01 -0000 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Paul Eggleton wrote: > On Monday 09 July 2012 11:24:27 Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Andrei Gherzan wrote: > > > So IMHO the EXTRA_IMAGE_FEATURES variable in the image should be > > > merged in the IMAGE_FEATURES above. I don't see the meaning of it. > > > > yup, that was precisely the point i was making. so given the > > potential for confusion, what should be the "best practise" here? > > based on my sketchy understanding, it seems the proper approach would > > be to let recipe files use IMAGE_FEATURES exclusively, while > > specifically reserving EXTRA_IMAGE_FEATURES for the developer's > > local.conf file, and avoid the current unpleasant mixing. > > Sounds like a good idea to me. i'll send in a patch that does that, especially since local.conf.sample specifically instructs the developer to use EXTRA_IMAGE_FEATURES. patch coming shortly. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ========================================================================