<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Bruce Ashfield <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bruce.ashfield@gmail.com" target="_blank">bruce.ashfield@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="">On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Christopher Larson <<a href="mailto:kergoth@gmail.com">kergoth@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> +addtask kernel_configme after do_patch<br>
> +<br>
<br>
</div>linux-yocto.inc already has:<br>
<br>
addtask kernel_configme before do_configure after do_patch<br>
<br>
So we should be able to avoid adding the task to the class, right ? I<br>
suppose the task could move into the class, but it was always a per<br>
recipe include in the past, I just don't want any unintended issues to<br>
happen from the double task add.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It depends on whether there's a need to support the use of the class without the .inc. If not, there are probably a number of bits in the .inc that belong in the class :) But it's never harmful to have multiple addtask lines, it just adds the specified deps to the existing task. I just wanted to make sure one couldn't get into a state where do_diffconfig depends on a function which isn't a task, as I would expect (though couldn't say with 100% certainty) that bitbake would yell about that :)<br>
</div></div>-- <br>Christopher Larson<br>clarson at kergoth dot com<br>Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus<br>Maintainer - Tslib<br>Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics
</div></div>