[oe] Question about OVERRIDES precedence

[Chris Larson]

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Maupin, Chase <chase.maupin at ti.com> wrote:

> > -----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?
>

There is no 1.10 branch in OE, so no.  Again, we're changing it in OE, not
bitbake.

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.


Yes, indeed, though I suspect that the existing prepend/appends were done by
people not thinking about the order, so they may not be  correct the way
they are now anyway .. :)
-- 
Christopher Larson
clarson at kergoth dot com
Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus
Maintainer - Tslib
Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics