* Re: [oe] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?
2014-07-14 9:37 ` Paul Eggleton
@ 2014-07-14 10:13 ` Robert P. J. Day
2014-07-14 10:31 ` Robert P. J. Day
2014-07-14 11:39 ` Robert P. J. Day
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Robert P. J. Day @ 2014-07-14 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Eggleton; +Cc: OpenEmbedded Devel List, Otavio Salvador, openembedded-core
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
========================================================================
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [oe] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?
2014-07-14 9:37 ` Paul Eggleton
2014-07-14 10:13 ` Robert P. J. Day
@ 2014-07-14 10:31 ` Robert P. J. Day
2014-07-14 11:05 ` Paul Eggleton
2014-07-14 11:39 ` Robert P. J. Day
2 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Robert P. J. Day @ 2014-07-14 10:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Eggleton; +Cc: OpenEmbedded Devel List, Otavio Salvador, openembedded-core
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
========================================================================
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [oe] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?
2014-07-14 10:31 ` Robert P. J. Day
@ 2014-07-14 11:05 ` Paul Eggleton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Paul Eggleton @ 2014-07-14 11:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert P. J. Day
Cc: OpenEmbedded Devel List, Otavio Salvador, openembedded-core
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [oe] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?
2014-07-14 9:37 ` Paul Eggleton
2014-07-14 10:13 ` Robert P. J. Day
2014-07-14 10:31 ` Robert P. J. Day
@ 2014-07-14 11:39 ` Robert P. J. Day
2014-07-14 12:14 ` Paul Eggleton
2 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Robert P. J. Day @ 2014-07-14 11:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Eggleton; +Cc: OpenEmbedded Devel List, Otavio Salvador, openembedded-core
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
========================================================================
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [oe] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?
2014-07-14 11:39 ` Robert P. J. Day
@ 2014-07-14 12:14 ` Paul Eggleton
2014-07-14 12:22 ` Robert P. J. Day
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Paul Eggleton @ 2014-07-14 12:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert P. J. Day
Cc: OpenEmbedded Devel List, Otavio Salvador, openembedded-core
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [oe] any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?
2014-07-14 12:14 ` Paul Eggleton
@ 2014-07-14 12:22 ` Robert P. J. Day
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Robert P. J. Day @ 2014-07-14 12:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Eggleton; +Cc: OpenEmbedded Devel List, Otavio Salvador, openembedded-core
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
========================================================================
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread