On 01/16/2012 01:45 PM, Phil Blundell wrote:

On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 10:19 -0800, Steve Sakoman wrote:

quoted

My tested-by was indeed performed with the meta-oe layer enabled.

In the future I will make clear what layers were used in my testing.

I fear that this kind of thing is going to bite us repeatedly :-(

It's never been entirely clear to me why meta-oe needs to override quite
so many bits of oe-core as it does.  I think you're probably right that,
as long as it continues to do so, and people enable meta-oe during
testing, this sort of issue probably is going to continue to occur.

It sounds like we need to collect a list of bits of oe-core that meta-oe
overrides and work out a plan to resolve these differences.
This sort of thing creates a lot of confusion for people (like me) that
are primarily concerned with getting work done using OE, and are less
concerned with the inner workings of layers.

Does anyone have suggestions for identifying these cases and explaining
why they are that way?

I see no sense in forcing people to basically fork layers due to
unresolved issues between OE-Core and meta-oe.

Philip

We had some discussion a while back about making the layer priority be a
user-configurable thing, which would enable you to sink meta-oe beneath
oe-core in the priority stack.  This would allow you to use the recipes
which are in meta-oe but not oe-core, without overriding the bits that
do exist in oe-core itself.  I think I lost that argument at the time
but I still feel this would be an improvement.

(Actually, right now what I am doing is just cherry-picking the few
recipes that I need from meta-oe into a local layer and not adding
meta-oe itself to bblayers.conf at all.)

p.



_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core