On Fri, 2021-12-03 at 01:39 -0800, Andre McCurdy wrote:
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 2:33 PM Richard Purdie
As a first, very easy, step, make a statement here on the mailing list
On Tue, 2021-11-30 at 13:45 -0800, Andre McCurdy wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 1:20 PM Ross Burton <ross@...> wrote:Some of us very much do care, it is actually bothering me a lot and I've posted
The only recipe? There are many recipes which set a default
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 19:32, Andre McCurdy <armccurdy@...> wrote:
This isn't equivalent - it will cause a change in behaviour for anyoneCorrect, but this is likely the only recipe in the greater ecosystem
using PACKAGECONFIG += "foo" from a .bbappend.
which has this behaviour, so I'm not that bothered to be honest. :)
PACKAGECONFIG with ?= and many which set it with ??=. Your change is
effectively switching the vim recipe from one approach to the other.
The fact that adding PACKAGECONFIG options from a .bbappend with +=
sometimes works OK and sometimes not is a source of confusion for new
You are right that no one seems to care though...
several times on the architecture list about this kind of issue.
We haven't worked out what we can agree to do about it though :(.
that all PACKAGECONFIG defaults should be assigned with ?= instead of
??= and fix the recipes in oe-core accordingly.
The question is whether we all agree on that and I'm not sure we all do.
As a second step, the parser could generate a warning (or even an
error) if any variable is assigned to with only ??= and += (the end
result of that combination is not what any user would expect and I
doubt if any legitimate use case relies on it).
Would be interesting to see if there is valid use so it is probably worth some
tests/analysis. The ??= operator never did what I'd hoped it would in reality