On 9/20/11 2:04 PM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote: > Hello, colleagues, > > While debugging some stuff in oe-core & company I've noticed that > lot's of packages > either don't use INC_PR, or misuse it (e.g. .inc has INC_PR, but then > .bb just defines PR = "rX").
I've noticed similar things. I'd agree, we should define and use INC_PR for items that have .inc files. There have been many times that I need to fix a bug in the .inc file and end up manually updating the PR is 2 or 3 recipes that use the .inc. One question though, how do we handle packages with multilib .inc files? INC_PR += ... (or is it .=) --Mark > From my previous experience with oe-dev, I found INC_PR very usefull > and error-prone feature. > What about making usage of INC_PR a policy decision, demanding that > all new packages should use INC_PR for their recipes, if .inc files > are used. And then define a grace period > during which all remaining packages should be converted to INC_PR (3 > months? Next release? I really don't know). > > I'm sorry if this issue was already discussed somewhere and I'm > duplicating the efforts > or proposing already discarded idea. > _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
