[OE-core] why would a recipe have both do_install() and do_install_append()?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012, Khem Raj wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 7/4/2012 4:29 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> >>>>> AFAICT, you can't override an append. Both appends, the
> >>>>> original and the bbappended, would get executed.
> >>>
> >>> ok, now i *definitely* want to know whether this would work or
> >>> not since there are a few recipes that define both do_install()
> >>> and do_install_append().
> > Andreas is correct, you can't override a do_install_append (),
> > both would just get appended.
>
> yes thats true. I was thinking about having appends which are
> recipe-class specific but that case wont apply to a normal _append
> like above

  so, in the end. there's really no compelling rationale for a recipe
defining both a do_install() and do_install_append() back to back, is
that correct?  because there are a small number of OE recipes that do
just that:

$ grep -wl do_install $(grep -rlw do_install_append *)
meta/recipes-support/libcap/libcap.inc
meta/recipes-devtools/e2fsprogs/e2fsprogs_1.42.1.bb
meta/recipes-core/tinylogin/tinylogin_1.4.bb
meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc-package.inc
meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto.inc
meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsb_1.4.bb
meta/recipes-extended/man/man_1.6f.bb
meta/recipes-extended/logrotate/logrotate_3.8.1.bb
$

  obviously, it doesn't hurt, it just seems unnecessary.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================