On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 03:59:36PM -0800, Joshua Lock wrote:

On 06/02/12 08:17, Paul Eggleton wrote:

On Thursday 02 February 2012 13:11:19 Joshua Lock wrote:

Apologies. I'm wrong here. It was PRIORITY which we agreed to drop.

It's worth noting however, at the same time PRIORITY removal was discussed it
was acknowledged that SECTION was questionable. Logical grouping of
recipes/packages is a useful thing but coming up with groupings that are
meaningful in all contexts is hard :(

Glad to know my recollection isn't wildly off the mark.

I noticed that there are similar, yet different, SECTION values being
used. If we opt to keep SECTION I wonder if we should try and
standardise/sanitise it?

If there is standardised SECTION variable why not use
recipes-${SECTION}/foo_1.0.bb as we already have couple of recipe-*
directories and it's sometimes hard to decide to which directory
something belongs.

Or other way around, standartise recipes-* directories and let bitbake
decide SECTION from it (like it does for PV and PN).

Cheers,

Debian's sections seem like reasonable inspiration?
http://packages.debian.org/stable/

I think SECTION is useful for tools like Hob and Narcissus, so I'm in
favour of keeping them.

Cheers,
Joshua
--
Joshua Lock
Yocto Project "Johannes factotum"
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@...
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto

--
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@...