On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 03:52 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > i was going to extend section 3.3.17, "Using Virtual Providers", > with an intro example using "udev" until i realized that that example > doesn't use the "virtual/" notation. so ... why not? is there some > distinction between other components that use the "virtual/" prefix, > but a reason that one does not specify: > > PROVIDES = "virtual/udev" > > rather than just: > > PROVIDES = "udev" > > and then use the corresponding PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/udev > notation?
The "virtual/" namespace is just a way of namespacing some key dependencies outside of the direct recipe namespace. virtual/libc is a better example and there are a few toolchain related ones. There are several different libc implementations and virtual/libc just says you want one without being specific. Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#155517): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/155517 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/85245879/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
