From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-GM-THRID: 6450015460633083904 X-Received: by 10.28.9.9 with SMTP id 9mr28486wmj.19.1503401492817; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 04:31:32 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: isar-users@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.28.91.7 with SMTP id p7ls513204wmb.19.canary-gmail; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 04:31:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.223.181.146 with SMTP id c18mr26184wre.18.1503401492371; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 04:31:32 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1503401492; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=HdasLA6irMTQKa+JgD3os74rNBF4LskUETaAulJXKUM5SO+wqQ/JRXVxkFLsFrqqV3 hxgqw0k4N+Kpi3zsOz51rU6fLSCxk/adpqMySljyaVmDpfbzG+yyhDeWPHCVzNSGQt5s RlOg+31yqYg+akb7O1O4/yg5PPXDWHlJ3UzYdpBNEN4PFR2MyShqJiqQDuTZ7JLCE64K n2RHV3nYldjqPkUAT9x/9XhR4Fa9Ifd/MBtRVd4zILMg1UUeXQIL7S9amqSONrqswCrN bwJj3xfI33sfICvXct0BRl9Ql6ubBUYK8a9g6Asx3DJY5GXnF7M5SK1IghgYfyAiJEPU GkOw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :mail-followup-to:message-id:subject:to:from:date :arc-authentication-results; bh=hPw9gOHtlQT70kEUO7BAemTIB6tJ2x+9MqUR3vNZUKA=; b=awTzQts90yvZeuJwJHsQ1fwYl0UhBTr5Q70CMbfZrstQAerDoxOjcvS9T4C7bglKnp qR/mzeOPf03bf7QbzJT1bZnHm/L9wdUqJZR1qGMPKgmnd/XnYxuRdJuc0uTVIVoMK3Uu Z/WrggtN0tj5SXaeGdFRlCK3qYuK9t5mmY96qWEshel1WmnOKcRBpNq/fpOPv09oq9cD Vl9nomp5yD/2sCiSk3GyAmcQsGEh2fIrmRa5ch2UsGA0Ti21V6AKfyRwFwpRvriZ/ilz I+bDCnb9uHyPsaf3oPEiFLvdIl6SYFTYA7/Akc9LIJaM5CQZW9kQ6aOjmtHrn+V+y8YQ vZUw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 85.214.62.211 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ibr@radix50.net) smtp.mailfrom=ibr@radix50.net Return-Path: Received: from aqmola.ilbers.de (aqmola.ilbers.de. [85.214.62.211]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f19si3007287wmf.4.2017.08.22.04.31.32 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Aug 2017 04:31:32 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 85.214.62.211 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ibr@radix50.net) client-ip=85.214.62.211; Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 85.214.62.211 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ibr@radix50.net) smtp.mailfrom=ibr@radix50.net Received: from yssyq.radix50.net (p5B2DC9F8.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [91.45.201.248]) (authenticated bits=0) by aqmola.ilbers.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4+deb7u1) with ESMTP id v7MBVTVS014684 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 13:31:31 +0200 Received: from yssyq.radix50.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by yssyq.radix50.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8) with ESMTP id v7MBVTIX009604 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 13:31:29 +0200 Received: (from ibr@localhost) by yssyq.radix50.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id v7MBVTaS009603 for isar-users@googlegroups.com; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 13:31:29 +0200 Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 13:31:29 +0200 From: Baurzhan Ismagulov To: isar-users@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0-10 of 16 v2 4/8] meta: conf: use bitbake.conf from bitbake and apply local changes Message-ID: <20170822113129.GF4244@yssyq.radix50.net> Mail-Followup-To: isar-users@googlegroups.com References: <20170821132539.GD8387@yssyq.radix50.net> <20170821202940.2f4b43c6@md1em3qc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170821202940.2f4b43c6@md1em3qc> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-TUID: fechG98++7RW On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 08:29:40PM +0200, Henning Schild wrote: > > (2) is worse, as IMHO, bitbake should do that itself and it doesn't > > (https://github.com/ilbers/isar/issues/27). Concatenating configs is > > magic that Yocto users do not expect, and this has to be documented. > > Could you provide a patch for the manual? > > No. You do not apply a patch directly to master if that creates an > issue, you could have asked me for a v3 instead. Please revert or > provide the patch to the manual yourself. In general, this is our intended approach (although in this particular case I'd still not block the inclusion of a patch that has value for the project by a required bitbake change upstream -- but that is a different story). Our current focus is to work together to improve Isar and process the patch backlog -- which I thought you agreed with Alex on phone. If this doesn't help you and you prefer the other model -- let's do it that way, it will only save my time. With kind regards, Baurzhan.