Re: [oe] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

Re: [oe] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

[Otavio Salvador]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
<rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
>
>   a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
> backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems
> like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to
> finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make
> the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the
> proper use of the word "task" these days.

I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing
list (added in Cc)

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

Re: [oe] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

[Paul Eggleton]

On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
> 
> <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> >   a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
> > 
> > backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems
> > like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to
> > finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make
> > the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the
> > proper use of the word "task" these days.
> 
> I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing
> list (added in Cc)

I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to keep these 
indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a limit to how long they 
should stay around in OE-Core. They can always be preserved in bbappends for 
those that do want to keep them.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [oe] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Paul Eggleton wrote:

> On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
> >
> > <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > >   a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
> > >
> > > backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems
> > > like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to
> > > finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make
> > > the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the
> > > proper use of the word "task" these days.
> >
> > I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing
> > list (added in Cc)
>
> I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to
> keep these indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a
> limit to how long they should stay around in OE-Core. They can
> always be preserved in bbappends for those that do want to keep
> them.

  i can submit a patch for that later today if no one objects.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: [oe] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Paul Eggleton wrote:

> On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
> >
> > <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > >   a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
> > >
> > > backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems
> > > like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to
> > > finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make
> > > the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the
> > > proper use of the word "task" these days.
> >
> > I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing
> > list (added in Cc)
>
> I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to
> keep these indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a
> limit to how long they should stay around in OE-Core. They can
> always be preserved in bbappends for those that do want to keep
> them.

  getting rid of all that "task-core" stuff in packagegroups looks
pretty easy, except for this snippet in
packagegroup-core-full-cmdline.bb:

    packages = d.getVar("PACKAGES", True).split()
    for pkg in packages:
        if pkg.endswith('-dev'):
            mapped = namemap.get(pkg[:-4], None)
            if mapped:
                mapped += '-dev'
        elif pkg.endswith('-dbg'):
            mapped = namemap.get(pkg[:-4], None)
            if mapped:
                mapped += '-dbg'
        else:
            mapped = namemap.get(pkg, None)

        if mapped:
            oldtaskname = mapped.replace("packagegroup-core", "task-core")
            mapstr = " %s %s" % (mapped, oldtaskname)
            d.appendVar("RPROVIDES_%s" % pkg, mapstr)
            d.appendVar("RREPLACES_%s" % pkg, mapstr)
            d.appendVar("RCONFLICTS_%s" % pkg, mapstr)
}

  would one simply delete that last "if mapped:" conditional in its
entirety? or what?

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: [oe] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

[Paul Eggleton]

On Monday 14 July 2014 06:31:18 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
> > > 
> > > <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > > >   a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
> > > > 
> > > > backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems
> > > > like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to
> > > > finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make
> > > > the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the
> > > > proper use of the word "task" these days.
> > > 
> > > I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing
> > > list (added in Cc)
> > 
> > I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to
> > keep these indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a
> > limit to how long they should stay around in OE-Core. They can
> > always be preserved in bbappends for those that do want to keep
> > them.
> 
>   getting rid of all that "task-core" stuff in packagegroups looks
> pretty easy, except for this snippet in
> packagegroup-core-full-cmdline.bb:
> 
>     packages = d.getVar("PACKAGES", True).split()
>     for pkg in packages:
>         if pkg.endswith('-dev'):
>             mapped = namemap.get(pkg[:-4], None)
>             if mapped:
>                 mapped += '-dev'
>         elif pkg.endswith('-dbg'):
>             mapped = namemap.get(pkg[:-4], None)
>             if mapped:
>                 mapped += '-dbg'
>         else:
>             mapped = namemap.get(pkg, None)
> 
>         if mapped:
>             oldtaskname = mapped.replace("packagegroup-core", "task-core")
>             mapstr = " %s %s" % (mapped, oldtaskname)
>             d.appendVar("RPROVIDES_%s" % pkg, mapstr)
>             d.appendVar("RREPLACES_%s" % pkg, mapstr)
>             d.appendVar("RCONFLICTS_%s" % pkg, mapstr)
> }
> 
>   would one simply delete that last "if mapped:" conditional in its
> entirety? or what?

Well the packagegroup-core-full-cmdline rename was relatively recent (March), 
so it would be a bit early to remove that as well. You'd need to cut out just 
the "oldtaskname" (and corresponding "%s") bit.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [oe] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Paul Eggleton wrote:

> On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
> >
> > <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > >   a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
> > >
> > > backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems
> > > like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to
> > > finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make
> > > the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the
> > > proper use of the word "task" these days.
> >
> > I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing
> > list (added in Cc)
>
> I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to
> keep these indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a
> limit to how long they should stay around in OE-Core. They can
> always be preserved in bbappends for those that do want to keep
> them.

  one more (general) question about this ... there's a fair bit of
this task/packagegroup backward compatibility stuff under the meta-oe
layer as well. i assume that patches to the meta-oe layer should still
be posted to this list, but have a subject line of:

  [meta-oe][PATCH] ...

correct? as in, two separate patches.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: [oe] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

[Paul Eggleton]

On Monday 14 July 2014 07:39:23 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
> > > 
> > > <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > > >   a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
> > > > 
> > > > backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems
> > > > like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to
> > > > finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make
> > > > the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the
> > > > proper use of the word "task" these days.
> > > 
> > > I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing
> > > list (added in Cc)
> > 
> > I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to
> > keep these indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a
> > limit to how long they should stay around in OE-Core. They can
> > always be preserved in bbappends for those that do want to keep
> > them.
> 
>   one more (general) question about this ... there's a fair bit of
> this task/packagegroup backward compatibility stuff under the meta-oe
> layer as well. i assume that patches to the meta-oe layer should still
> be posted to this list, but have a subject line of:
> 
>   [meta-oe][PATCH] ...
> 
> correct? as in, two separate patches.

To be clear (since we're cross-posted to two lists in this thread) OE-Core 
patches go to the openembedded-core list, meta-oe patches to the openembedded-
devel list.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [oe] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Paul Eggleton wrote:

> On Monday 14 July 2014 07:39:23 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > > On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
> > > >
> > > > <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > > > >   a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
> > > > >
> > > > > backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems
> > > > > like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to
> > > > > finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make
> > > > > the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the
> > > > > proper use of the word "task" these days.
> > > >
> > > > I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing
> > > > list (added in Cc)
> > >
> > > I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to
> > > keep these indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a
> > > limit to how long they should stay around in OE-Core. They can
> > > always be preserved in bbappends for those that do want to keep
> > > them.
> >
> >   one more (general) question about this ... there's a fair bit of
> > this task/packagegroup backward compatibility stuff under the meta-oe
> > layer as well. i assume that patches to the meta-oe layer should still
> > be posted to this list, but have a subject line of:
> >
> >   [meta-oe][PATCH] ...
> >
> > correct? as in, two separate patches.
>
> To be clear (since we're cross-posted to two lists in this thread)
> OE-Core patches go to the openembedded-core list, meta-oe patches to
> the openembedded- devel list.

  ah, gotcha, will fix.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================