From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>
To: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: OE Core mailing list <openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
Subject: Re: a question about recipe style
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 07:06:49 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.11.1407100704380.23514@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1404938782.15985.60.camel@ted>
On Wed, 9 Jul 2014, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-07-08 at 11:34 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > perusing the bitbake user manual, and ran across the section
> > discussing the "override style" operators _append, _prepend and
> > _remove, and thought i'd go looking through the OE recipes for an
> > actual example of the use of "_remove", and the only example i found
> > is in meta/recipes-extended/newt, but it looks a bit awkward, so i
> > just want to know about recommended style.
> >
> > there are two recipe files there -- libnewt_0.52.17.bb and
> > libnewt-python_0.52.17.bb -- with the following structure. that first
> > recipe file contains (among other things) the following:
> >
> > PACKAGES_prepend = "whiptail "
> > ...
> > FILES_whiptail = "${bindir}/whiptail"
> >
> > ok, so that recipe defines an additional package, and adds a single
> > file to that package, whereupon the second recipe file contains:
> >
> > require recipes-extended/newt/libnewt_${PV}.bb
> > ...
> > PACKAGES_remove = "whiptail"
> >
> > it just seems awkward for recipe 1 to explicitly add a package, only
> > for recipe 2 to include that recipe file, and subsequently remove that
> > package.
> >
> > it's not a big deal, but from a style perspective, i would have
> > thought one would first create a generic libnewt.inc file with common
> > content, then define the two recipe files off of that. does that make
> > sense in terms of best programming principles?
>
> Yes, it does seem like an odd way to have written the recipes. I'd be
> happy enough to see some cleanup patches...
maybe i'll give that as an assignment to my students. :-) that
oddity clearly isn't a big deal since it works just fine, i just
thought it looked strange enough that i wanted to make sure there
wasn't something subtle going on i didn't understand.
movin' on ...
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-10 11:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-08 15:34 a question about recipe style Robert P. J. Day
2014-07-09 20:46 ` Richard Purdie
2014-07-10 11:06 ` Robert P. J. Day [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.LFD.2.11.1407100704380.23514@localhost \
--to=rpjday@crashcourse.ca \
--cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
--cc=richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox