On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 10:30:04AM +0000, Mike Crowe wrote:
> On Friday 06 November 2015 at 01:16:46 -0800, Andre McCurdy wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Mike Crowe <mac@mcrowe.com> wrote:
> > > Give recipes and classes the ability to opt out of EXTRA_OEMAKE
> > > containing the legacy value without removing other recipe-specific or
> > > local additions.
> > 
> > Isn't this possible already from within a recipe or class by using
> > 
> >   EXTRA_OEMAKE = ...
> > 
> > instead of
> > 
> >   EXTRA_OEMAKE += ...
> > 
> > ie what autotools.bbclass, kernel.bbclass and many recipes do already.
> > 
> > For the specific case of module.bbclass, changing the EXTRA_OEMAKE
> > assignment to '=' might require some recipes to be tweaked to so that
> > they "inherit module" before adding their own options to EXTRA_OEMAKE,
> > but it seems like a cleaner solution?
> 
> It would be, but I was afraid of what I might break. I suspect that there
> are many unseen third-party and local recipes that inherit module.bbclass.
> 
> It would be great to get to the point that EXTRA_OEMAKE is empty by default
> but I imagine that the experts are already aware of the difficulties with
> doing this which is why the current value has lasted so long.

Is it really good goal to get rid of "-e"?

I know that the environment used in bitbake tasks is already well
defined and controlled, but I still find a bit more control with -e to
be useful in many cases.

I know I'll be able to return -e where useful, but what's the main
advantage of removing it from default?

Regards,

> 
> Mike.
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

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