[oe] [PATCH] base.bbclass: fix soc-family test

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2010/9/2 Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks at gmail.com>:
> see http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2010-September/023680.html
>
> Signed-off-by: Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks at gmail.com>
> ---
>  classes/base.bbclass |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/classes/base.bbclass b/classes/base.bbclass
> index 299e875..2c9ad89 100644
> --- a/classes/base.bbclass
> +++ b/classes/base.bbclass
> @@ -337,7 +337,7 @@ python () {
>             this_machine = bb.data.getVar('MACHINE', d, 1)
>             if this_machine and not re.match(need_machine, this_machine):
>                 this_soc_family = bb.data.getVar('SOC_FAMILY', d, 1)
> -                if this_soc_family and not re.match(need_machine, this_soc_family):
> +                if (this_soc_family and not re.match(need_machine, this_soc_family)) or not this_soc_family:
>                     raise bb.parse.SkipPackage("incompatible with machine %s" % this_machine)
>
>         need_target = bb.data.getVar('COMPATIBLE_TARGET_SYS', d, 1)
> --
> 1.6.4.2
>

Bump.

This is out for a week now without any feedback, although the patch is
quite trivial.

Actually I am quite disappointed by the developers who created and
pushed the SOC_FAMILY patch.
They were very eager to push this change in a day, without waiting for
the discussion on it to conclude, but they seem to be not-so-willing
to review a fix for a problem they caused (let alone resolve the
problem). What is even somewhat irritating is that one of the people
involved is often in the front seat when it comes to criticizing
others if they make a mistake.

Frans.