[OE-core] appears to be inconsistency re: base-files between oe-core and meta-angstrom

[Chris Larson]

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Richard Purdie <
richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2013-08-29 at 12:49 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-08-29 at 07:37 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > >   distroless. i realize i *could* set a value for DISTRO, but it would
> > > seem that i shouldn't have to in order to avoid a build error.
> >
> > Well, either you're using angstrom or you aren't.  If you do want to use
> > it then you ought to set DISTRO appropriately, and if you don't want to
> > use it then you probably oughtn't to have the angstrom layer included at
> > all.
> >
> > Trying to use the angstrom .bbappends and files with a different (or no)
> > distro configuration will give you a set of metadata that's neither one
> > thing nor the other and, even if you didn't get a build error, there's
> > no guarantee that the resulting image would actually work.
>
> I'm not sure I agree. Ideally layers should be includable without
> turning on behaviour unless it is enabled. This is why we have things
> like an array of OVERRIDES to chose from.
>
> So I'd actually suggest this is a bug in the angstrom layer. There are
> also other layers which probably have issues, maybe including meta-yocto
> but we should fix them.
>
> I'll go further and suggest that Yocto Project Compatible status might
> depend on this in future (the current questions suggest it should be the
> case already).
>

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Distro and BSP layers really need to be
leveraging OVERRIDES for anything distro or machine specific.
-- 
Christopher Larson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20130829/7f01c332/attachment-0002.html>