[oe] [meta-oe][PATCH] smartmontools: import from OE classic

[Koen Kooi]

Op 3 mei 2013, om 16:35 heeft Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton at linux.intel.com> het volgende geschreven:

> On Friday 03 May 2013 16:00:13 Nicolas Dechesne wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Nicolas Dechesne
>> 
>> <nicolas.dechesne at linaro.org> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Paul Eggleton
>>> 
>>> <paul.eggleton at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday 26 April 2013 23:41:38 Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>>>>> And do you really need a .inc?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Are we removing inc files if they were present in OE Classic? First
>>>>>> I've
>>>>>> heard if we are...
>>>>> 
>>>>> If we are trying to reduce the number of versions of recipes we carry,
>>>>> dropping .inc files would seem to be a good idea. I don't have strong
>>>>> feelings, but it seems like something we should consider.
>>>> 
>>>> I agree we should try to keep only one version of each recipe in software
>>>> layers, however I figure it makes it easier for people to carry their own
>>>> versions of recipes in distro layers (particularly older, which may be
>>>> required in certain circumstances) if we do keep inc files where they
>>>> already exist.
>>> 
>>> I put the .inc in this patch, indeed because it was there in OE
>>> Classic. I can update the patch if there is a consensus to remove the
>>> .inc.
>>> 
>>> also for the INC_PR, I added it, because I thought it makes sense for
>>> .bb with .inc to have that. again, i can update the patch if you
>>> recommend doing this way.
>> 
>> hi, can you please let me know what I should do here? i can update the
>> patch if needed, but not sure there is a clear consensus on what to
>> do!
> 
> IMO, let's keep the separate inc file, but drop PR and INC_PR.

I still haven't heard a compelling case why smartmontools needs a .inc and all the other recipes in meta-oe don't. So drop the inc and be consistent with other recipes.