<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Robert P. J. Day <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rpjday@crashcourse.ca" target="_blank">rpjday@crashcourse.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Paul Eggleton wrote:<br>
<br>
> On Monday 09 July 2012 11:24:27 Robert P. J. Day wrote:<br>
> > On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Andrei Gherzan wrote:<br>
> > > So IMHO the EXTRA_IMAGE_FEATURES variable in the image should be<br>
> > > merged in the IMAGE_FEATURES above. I don't see the meaning of it.<br>
> ><br>
> > yup, that was precisely the point i was making. so given the<br>
> > potential for confusion, what should be the "best practise" here?<br>
> > based on my sketchy understanding, it seems the proper approach would<br>
> > be to let recipe files use IMAGE_FEATURES exclusively, while<br>
> > specifically reserving EXTRA_IMAGE_FEATURES for the developer's<br>
> > local.conf file, and avoid the current unpleasant mixing.<br>
><br>
> Sounds like a good idea to me.<br>
<br>
</div> i'll send in a patch that does that, especially since<br>
local.conf.sample specifically instructs the developer to use<br>
EXTRA_IMAGE_FEATURES. patch coming shortly.<br>
<div class="im HOEnZb"><br></div></blockquote><div> </div><div>Good. </div><div><br></div><div>@g</div></div>