From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from astoria.ccjclearline.com (astoria.ccjclearline.com [64.235.106.9]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB626CF35 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:24:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [173.34.6.101] (port=60592 helo=crashcourse.ca) by astoria.ccjclearline.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VUxJa-0006HT-Lb for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 07:24:58 -0400 Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 07:24:50 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" X-X-Sender: rpjday@oneiric To: OE Core mailing list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - astoria.ccjclearline.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.openembedded.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - crashcourse.ca X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Subject: Re: can one add a "packagegroup" simply by adding the recipe file for it? X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:24:59 -0000 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII wait, i think i might have just answered my own question ... see below ... On Sat, 12 Oct 2013, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > just to make sure i'm not missing anything subtle, i know you can > add a "packagegroup" to your build using IMAGE_FEATURES, but given > that there are *lots* more packagegroup recipe files in oe-core than > have corresponding PACKAGE_GROUP_* definitions in core-image.bbclass: > > $ find . -name "packagegroup*bb" > ./recipes-gnome/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-standalone-gmae-sdk-target.bb > ./recipes-gnome/packagegroups/packagegroup-toolset-native.bb > ./recipes-gnome/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-sdk-gmae.bb > ./recipes-devtools/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-device-devel.bb > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-cross-canadian.bb > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-sdk.bb > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-ssh-openssh.bb > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-standalone-sdk-target.bb > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-boot.bb > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-tools-profile.bb > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-self-hosted.bb > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-ssh-dropbear.bb > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-tools-debug.bb > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-buildessential.bb > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-tools-testapps.bb > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-base.bb > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-nfs.bb > ./recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-eclipse-debug.bb > ./recipes-graphics/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-x11.bb > ./recipes-graphics/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-x11-base.bb > ./recipes-graphics/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-x11-xserver.bb > ./recipes-graphics/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-clutter.bb > ./recipes-graphics/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-directfb.bb > ./recipes-qt/packagegroups/packagegroup-qte-toolchain-target.bb > ./recipes-qt/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-qt4e.bb > ./recipes-qt/packagegroups/packagegroup-qt-toolchain-target.bb > ./recipes-qt/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-qt.bb > ./recipes-sato/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-x11-sato.bb > ./recipes-extended/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-lsb.bb > ./recipes-extended/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-basic.bb > $ > > is it accurate to say that you can just as equivalently add the recipe > file directly using, say, CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL? is there any > functional difference between those two approaches? feeling a bit sheepish if this is the answer ... i notice that core-image.bbclass defines: PACKAGE_GROUP_nfs-server = "packagegroup-core-nfs-server" however, while there is no recipe file named "packagegroup-core-nfs-server.bb", there is one named "packagegroup-core-nfs.bb", which contains: inherit packagegroup PACKAGES = "${PN}-server" so does defining a PACKAGE_GROUP_* entry in core-image.bbclass allow the packagegroup definition search to examine the internals of a recipe file to check the definition of "PACKAGES" to find a match? as opposed to referring to a recipe file directly which must *exactly* match the name of the recipe file? thanks for any clarification. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ========================================================================