any value in keeping the backward compat "task-core" stuff?
a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the proper use of the word "task" these days.
thoughts?
rday
Signature · 7 lines
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================Quoted 7 lines · Robert P. J. Day
a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the proper use of the word "task" these days.
I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing list (added in Cc)
Signature · 3 lines
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
Quoted 5 lines · On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
Quoted 2 lines · <[email protected]> wrote:
a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the proper use of the word "task" these days.
I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing list (added in Cc)
I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to keep these indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a limit to how long they should stay around in OE-Core. They can always be preserved in bbappends for those that do want to keep them.
Cheers,
Paul
Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre
Quoted 12 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 11 lines · On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
Quoted 7 lines · <[email protected]> wrote:
a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the proper use of the word "task" these days.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing list (added in Cc)
I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to keep these indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a limit to how long they should stay around in OE-Core. They can always be preserved in bbappends for those that do want to keep them.
i can submit a patch for that later today if no one objects.
rday
Signature · 7 lines
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================Quoted 12 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 11 lines · On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
Quoted 7 lines · <[email protected]> wrote:
a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the proper use of the word "task" these days.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing list (added in Cc)
I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to keep these indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a limit to how long they should stay around in OE-Core. They can always be preserved in bbappends for those that do want to keep them.
getting rid of all that "task-core" stuff in packagegroups looks
pretty easy, except for this snippet in packagegroup-core-full-cmdline.bb:
packages = d.getVar("PACKAGES", True).split()
for pkg in packages:
if pkg.endswith('-dev'):
mapped = namemap.get(pkg[:-4], None)
if mapped:
mapped += '-dev'
elif pkg.endswith('-dbg'):
mapped = namemap.get(pkg[:-4], None)
if mapped:
mapped += '-dbg'
else:
mapped = namemap.get(pkg, None)
if mapped:
oldtaskname = mapped.replace("packagegroup-core", "task-core") mapstr = " %s %s" % (mapped, oldtaskname) d.appendVar("RPROVIDES_%s" % pkg, mapstr) d.appendVar("RREPLACES_%s" % pkg, mapstr) d.appendVar("RCONFLICTS_%s" % pkg, mapstr)
}
would one simply delete that last "if mapped:" conditional in its
entirety? or what?
rday
Signature · 7 lines
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================Quoted 47 lines · On Monday 14 July 2014 06:31:18 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
Quoted 12 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 11 lines · On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
Quoted 7 lines · <[email protected]> wrote:
a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the proper use of the word "task" these days.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing list (added in Cc)
I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to keep these indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a limit to how long they should stay around in OE-Core. They can always be preserved in bbappends for those that do want to keep them.
getting rid of all that "task-core" stuff in packagegroups looks
pretty easy, except for this snippet in packagegroup-core-full-cmdline.bb:packages =
d.getVar("PACKAGES", True).split()
for pkg in packages:
ifpkg.endswith('-dev'):
mapped =namemap.get(pkg[:-4], None)
if mapped:
mapped += '-dev'
elifpkg.endswith('-dbg'):
mapped =namemap.get(pkg[:-4], None)
if mapped:
mapped += '-dbg'
else:
mapped =namemap.get(pkg, None)if mapped:
oldtaskname =mapped.replace("packagegroup-core", "task-core")mapstr = " %s %s" % (mapped, oldtaskname)d.appendVar("RPROVIDES_%s" % pkg, mapstr)d.appendVar("RREPLACES_%s" % pkg, mapstr)d.appendVar("RCONFLICTS_%s" % pkg, mapstr)
}
Quoted 2 lines
would one simply delete that last "if mapped:" conditional in its
entirety? or what?
Well the packagegroup-core-full-cmdline rename was relatively recent (March), so it would be a bit early to remove that as well. You'd need to cut out just the "oldtaskname" (and corresponding "%s") bit.
Cheers,
Paul
Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre
Quoted 12 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 11 lines · On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
Quoted 7 lines · <[email protected]> wrote:
a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the proper use of the word "task" these days.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing list (added in Cc)
I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to keep these indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a limit to how long they should stay around in OE-Core. They can always be preserved in bbappends for those that do want to keep them.
one more (general) question about this ... there's a fair bit of
this task/packagegroup backward compatibility stuff under the meta-oe layer as well. i assume that patches to the meta-oe layer should still be posted to this list, but have a subject line of:
[meta-oe][PATCH] ...
correct? as in, two separate patches.
rday
Signature · 7 lines
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================Quoted 22 lines · On Monday 14 July 2014 07:39:23 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
Quoted 12 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 11 lines · On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
Quoted 7 lines · <[email protected]> wrote:
a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the proper use of the word "task" these days.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing list (added in Cc)
I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to keep these indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a limit to how long they should stay around in OE-Core. They can always be preserved in bbappends for those that do want to keep them.
Quoted 8 lines
one more (general) question about this ... there's a fair bit of
this task/packagegroup backward compatibility stuff under the meta-oe layer as well. i assume that patches to the meta-oe layer should still be posted to this list, but have a subject line of:[meta-oe][PATCH] ...
correct? as in, two separate patches.
To be clear (since we're cross-posted to two lists in this thread) OE-Core patches go to the openembedded-core list, meta-oe patches to the openembedded- devel list.
Cheers,
Paul
Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre
Quoted 28 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 27 lines · On Monday 14 July 2014 07:39:23 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
Quoted 12 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 11 lines · On Friday 11 July 2014 20:39:04 Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Robert P. J. Day
Quoted 7 lines · <[email protected]> wrote:
a number of the current packagegroup recipe files still have
backward compatibility support for the old "task-core" names, seems like that's been there for well over a year, would it be safe to finally just toss that? seems like everyone's had enough time to make the move to the new names, and it would be clearer to not confuse the proper use of the word "task" these days.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I agree; however this question should also be send to oe-core mailing list (added in Cc)
I agree as well; these should go. I know there are some who want to keep these indefinitely for upgrade purposes, but I think there's a limit to how long they should stay around in OE-Core. They can always be preserved in bbappends for those that do want to keep them.
one more (general) question about this ... there's a fair bit of
this task/packagegroup backward compatibility stuff under the meta-oe layer as well. i assume that patches to the meta-oe layer should still be posted to this list, but have a subject line of:
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
[meta-oe][PATCH] ...
correct? as in, two separate patches.
To be clear (since we're cross-posted to two lists in this thread) OE-Core patches go to the openembedded-core list, meta-oe patches to the openembedded- devel list.
ah, gotcha, will fix.
rday
Signature · 7 lines
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================