Re: Patch for libfann-2.0.0 recipe

[Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>]

On 18-06-09 20:11, Philip Balister wrote:
> Koen Kooi wrote:
>> On 18-06-09 18:52, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>> Hello Koen,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Koen Kooi<k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> PR = "r01"
>>>>
>>>> Don't set PR to that.
>>>
>>> I believe that most people prefer to always have PR field included;
>>> obviously it ought to be PR = "r1" or PR = "r0" but it is harder to
>>> forget to update it when it shows in the recipe.
>>
>> That's nonsense. Not setting PR = "r0" in recipes makes maintenance a
>> lot easier, e.g. forcing rebuild or all xorg libs. If every recipe was
>> already using INC_PR, I might agree with you, but since that isn't the
>> case adding PR = "r0" is creating more work.
>
> Can you explain this a little clearer? I know a number of people on the
> list feel like Otavio and it would be really helpful for people to
> understand what the downside is to starting with PR = "r0" instead of
> leaving it out.

Suppose you want to bump PR on every xorg lib recipe, do you want to 
edit 70 recipes or do you only want to edit 1 .inc file and 3 recipes? 
If you're in the 'edit 70 recipes' crowd, add PR = "r0" to all recipes 
in OE. If not, leave it out, bitbake defaults to it anyway.
Also, does anyone remember how much pain we had when adding ${PN}-dbg 
into the default PACKAGES only to discover that lots of recipes were 
needlessly copying defaults?

regards,

Koen