On Monday 03 December 2012 03:16:10 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2012, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > On Sunday 02 December 2012 15:35:54 you wrote:
> > > On 12/02/2012 03:24 PM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 02 December 2012 14:51:28 Scott Garman wrote:
> > > >> Robert Day has brought up an inconsistency in the way we append to
> > > >> BBPATH within a couple of our layer.conf files.
> > > >>
> > > >> In meta-hob, meta-yocto-bsp, and meta-intel, we do:
> > > >>
> > > >> BBPATH := "${BBPATH}:${LAYERDIR}"
> > > >>
> > > >> but in meta-yocto, we do:
> > > >>
> > > >> BBPATH := "${LAYERDIR}:${BBPATH}"
> > > >>
> > > >> Unless someone explains to me that it's necessary to use this
> > > >> different
> > > >> ordering in meta-yocto's layer.conf, I will submit a patch to make
> > > >> this
> > > >> more consistent.
> > > >
> > > > I think it actually ought to be:
> > > >
> > > > BBPATH .= ":${LAYERDIR}"
> > >
> > > Oh? Would this apply just to meta-yocto or all layer.conf files?
> >
> > All, really. Functionally it makes no real difference, but I think it's
> > preferred stylistically based on previous discussions.
>
> hang on ... i thought the ordering of BBPATH would affect the
> processing of "include" directives. no?
Yes, it does. What I mean is, functionally _within layer.conf_ the following
two are equivalent:
BBPATH := "${BBPATH}:${LAYERDIR}"
BBPATH .= ":${LAYERDIR}"
Cheers,
Paul
--
Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
