[oe] [RFC]: Is MACHINE_TASK_PROVIDER still being used or should it be phased out?

[José Bernardo Bandos Rodrigues]

I do use and build for personal use opie-image frequently. Will this break
it, or the replace should go smoothly?

On 3/10/08, Hans Henry von Tresckow <hvontres at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (sorry for the repost, but I forgot the RFC tag the first time)
>
> I am trying to fix http://bugs.openembedded.net/show_bug.cgi?id=3969.
>
> I basicaly have two options here:
>
> 1) simply replace MACHINE_TASK_PROVIDER with task-base-extended in the
> affected recipie
>
> 2) come up with a different solution that preserves MACHINE_TASK_PROVIDER
> and adds a suitable definition
>
> It seems that a lot of recent image recipies have used approach #1 and I
> was
> wondering if MACHINE_TASK_PROVIDER  was still actively being used or if it
> is mostly left over from the initial task-base switchover.
>
> Also, if it is still in use, do any of the current users care about
> opie-image in particular?
>
> (I will use #1 if I don't hear back soon)
>
> Thank you very much,
>
>
> --
> Henry von Tresckow (hvontres)
>
> Poodle life support team
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>