[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 11:42 AM
> To: openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> Subject: Re: [oe] Question about OVERRIDES precedence
> 
> 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.

Chris,

I just realized what you were talking about.  I was looking at the bitbake.conf file in the bitbake repository, not the one in the OE repository.  Now what you are saying makes more sense.  Sorry for the confusion.

> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel