[oe] FILE_PR and my requirements Re: Some open issues
Holger Freyther
zecke at selfish.org
Sat Oct 18 13:20:05 UTC 2008
On Saturday 18 October 2008 14:32:37 Holger Freyther wrote:
More in depth:
Issues with the current approach:
- OE => poky is more hard to sync as one needs to watch PR
- We need to make sure that people do not introduce PR but use FILE_PR
Alternatives:
- Python black magic(*)
- A new set of variables + bitbake change
Alternative Python black magic:
- I strongly oppose any new transparent python magic. I constantly see people
confused by what we do behind the scenes. I want that PF (so WORKDIR)
containts the PN, PV, 'PR' of the resulting package. It can not be that you
have a PR r10.1 as package but only a r10 in your work directory.
- If I'm not mistaken about the above I will not be happy with such a
solution
Alternative a new set of variables:
- Revert to make PR as it was before. This adds legacy...
- Introduce PKG_PR which is the composition of PR and DISTRO_PR
- Change PF to be PN-PV-PR (this influences the stamps)
- Change Bitbake to cache PKG_PR and prefer it over PR.
comments?
More information about the Openembedded-devel
mailing list