On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 5:55 PM Andre McCurdy <armccu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An over-ride replaces the original value regardless of whether or > not it's set up with +=. As replacing the original value seems to be > the intention here, drop the += to make it more explicit. Also some > minor recipe formatting tweaks. > > Signed-off-by: Andre McCurdy <armccu...@gmail.com> > Technically this is not the case, not precisely. += is appending to any existing DEPENDS_class-native value, and only *then* is the override applied to replace DEPENDS. So it's not appending to DEPENDS, it's appending to DEPENDS_class-native. In this case, it's most likely doing it this way in the .inc so it's possible for the recipe including it to define DEPENDS_class-native alongside DEPENDS before the inclusion, but this is largely pointless, since they can always += to it *after* the inclusion instead. So I think you're good, most likely it's still fine to remove it, but I wanted to clarify, as there *are* times when this is a useful thing to do. -- Christopher Larson kergoth at gmail dot com Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
