Re: Style issue for recipes

[Philip Balister <philip@balister.org>]

On 09/04/2014 01:29 PM, Andreas Müller wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:
>> On 4 September 2014 15:12, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:
>>> Quick question of style for the community to bikeshed on:  in the
>>> general case should recipes be split into foo_1.2.bb and foo.inc, or
>>> should they only split to bb/inc if there are multiple versions and
>>> generally there should just be foo_1.2.bb.
>>
>> Another argument against widespread inc files: they encourage the
>> impression that maintaining multiple versions is just a matter of
>> having a .inc file.  The moment you start having to put
>> version-specific statements into a .bb you've entered a world of pain
>> in keeping the .bb files in sync, moving options into the .inc as they
>> become used by all versions, and purging old version-specific
>> statements.
>>
>> Ross
>> --
> I agree with Ross: It often took me time to find out where
> functionality comes from. Inc-files do only make sense for multiple
> versions of recipes or if different recipes share same code (only
> example I can remember is meta-gnome gvfs/gvfs-gdu-volume-monitor
> circular-dependency hack).
> 
> My feeling is that the inc-files are still from classic oe times where
> we had multiple versions for many recipes and most can be merged into
> recipes without loosing something.

The qwt recipe uses an include file and two bb files for qt versus
qt-embedded builds. I do not know if this is wise, but it is a case not
mentioned here.

Philip




> 
> Andreas
>