[OE-core] what are the major phases of do_patch() for the kernel?

[Bruce Ashfield]

On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Robert P. J. Day
<rpjday at crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> ... snip ...
>
>> Sure ... but I'll point out that you are going into architectural
>> details that are under the covers, and that are written from the
>> point of view of a kernel tree maintainer using the tools, they are
>> not written from the point of view of the casual observer. The
>> moving parts of the tools that can be tweaked, are already brought
>> out out to the recipes (I'll point out again that the bitbake
>> recipes you see are but one binding).
>>
>> So yes, another variation of the document might be useful, but I've
>> (we've), moved these details out from "in front" and instead have
>> focussed on the use cases .. from someone creating a new BSP, or
>> adding a configuration fragment to their build .. i.e. it looks and
>> works just like any other package in the system from the point of
>> view of user manipulations, with the extra functionality available
>> if someone has used them, and finds that their use case doesn't fit
>> the mold (i.e. how many people go an need to modify bitbake when
>> using oe-core? it took me 2 years to need to do that).
>>
>> What is the goal of a class that you'd be trying to do around this ?
>> That makes all the difference in what I'd suggest for options and
>> changes.
>
>   points well taken so let me make a much more innocuous suggestion.
> perhaps the higher-level routines like createme, updateme, and so on
> could have a short comment paragraph or two at the top just
> summarizing what they do, nothing more than that.

Absolutely. Right in the scripts themselves .. a good suggestion, and
I'll do that, it also saves me providing the information in multiple
places (and I can shout, "read the fine script!" .. not likely, but I can
dream :)

>
>   i accept that even that higher level is still "under the covers" but
> for the fun of it, i'm just following along with each (task) step of
> building a yocto kernel, and it would make it *way* easier if i had
> just a basic understanding of what each bitbake task was supposed to
> accomplish.

Yep. And I agree ... this is good, and no harm. My comments aren't
meant to discourage, just direct to something that is useful for you, me
and anyone else following along :)

>
>   most of those utility scripts already have a "usage" routine -- how
> hard would it be to add another few lines of comment as to what the
> script is meant to do?

Not hard .. I'll whip that up.

>
>   anyway, i've whined about this sufficiently, so back to the code...

That means it is my turn! ;)

Cheers,

Bruce

>
> rday
>
> --
>
> ========================================================================
> Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
>                         http://crashcourse.ca
>
> Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
> LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
> ========================================================================
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core



-- 
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end"