[oe] Question about OVERRIDES precedence

[Maupin, Chase]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: openembedded-devel-bounces at lists.openembedded.org
> [mailto:openembedded-devel-bounces at lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
> Chris Larson
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:34 AM
> To: openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> Subject: Re: [oe] Question about OVERRIDES precedence
> 
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Maupin, Chase <chase.maupin at ti.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > So are you saying that we are just going to change the order of how
> > OVERRIDES is appended to in OE like Denys was suggesting?  That would
> still
> > lead to issues like local not being the highest priority unless we would
> > also change bitbake.conf to define OVERRIDES as
> > "${TARGET_ARCH}:${TARGET_OS}:${MACHINE}:local".  That way we could
> prepend
> > OVERRIDES in OE and still have local be the last one evaluated.
> >
> 
> No.  What I'm saying is, the definition of OVERRIDES in bitbake.conf will
> be
> reversed.  Not that difficult to understand.  I don't know how I could
> possibly be any clearer here.

Great.  I assume this will be on the 1.10 branch as well as the master branch?  Is there anything I can do to help here?

I guess with the reversal of the definition in bitbake.conf we can then change the appends to prepends in OE as well as reversing the definitions there.  That way the OVERRIDES list should be built up in the proper order.


> --
> Christopher Larson
> clarson at kergoth dot com
> Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus
> Maintainer - Tslib
> Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel