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

[Maupin, Chase]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: openembedded-devel-bounces at lists.openembedded.org
> [mailto:openembedded-devel-bounces at lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
> Phil Blundell
> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 4:20 PM
> To: openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> Subject: Re: [oe] [PATCH] base.bbclass: fix soc-family test
> 
> On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 14:37 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > I'd like us to find a compromise and a solution that satisfies everybody.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the original discussion about SOC_FAMILY vs.
> MACHINE_CLASS
> > never came to any fruition - Graeme explained his motives behind
> MACHINE_CLASS
> > and said that it is now deprecated.
> >
> > It was also mentioned, while SOC_FAMILY is slightly newer than
> MACHINE_CLASS,
> > the feature itself is over a year old and used quite extensively,
> although
> > limited mainly to recipes/ti location...
> >
> > And if technically SOC_FAMILY may be similar to MACHINE_CLASS, logically
> they
> > try to solve grouping problem from different direction, which was also
> > explained.
> >
> > After that the original discussion was stalled and there were no strong
> > opinions one way or another. Based on that, Chase's change was pushed.
> >
> > I see and understand Phil's position - if that's strong enough, we can
> > re-consider.
> 
> I take the point about MACHINE_CLASS and SOC_FAMILY being different in
> intent.  However, I do feel that these are just two out of a whole
> universe of possible machine groupings and I remain somewhat uneasy
> about adding this sort of thing to base.bbclass: if we admit SOC_FAMILY
> (or even MACHINE_CLASS) there then it seems like it will set an
> undesirable precedent for the next guy who wants his favourite machine
> grouping to be given the same treatment.  (The same thing applies to the
> OVERRIDES patch that was posted recently and which I am not very fond of
> either.)
> 
> How many recipes are there for which this is a big deal?  It's worth
> remembering that the whole COMPATIBLE_MACHINE thing in base.bbclass is,
> essentially, just syntactic sugar and there is nothing to stop you from
> implementing whatever compatibility logic you want in your own .bb files
> (or in an .inc, or a custom class).  If there are only a handful of
> recipes for which gating on SOC_FAMILY is required then I would suggest
> that you simply put the appropriate Python bits in those recipes.

Phil,

First thanks for the response.  There a quite a few recipes that use this or plan to use it.  Kernel recipes, several of the recipes in the "recipes/ti" directory.  I guess as a person who actually uses this I have a bias here.  I hope you can understand though that this is variable found usefulness as an override and that is why it was extended to also work for COMPATIBLE_MACHINE.

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