**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Tue Jun 09 02:59:58 2015 Jun 09 19:56:15 XorA, you should fix the topic, it points people at amethyst Jun 09 20:18:25 Crofton: I am not admin here Jun 09 21:50:32 bluelightning: thanks for your help Jun 09 21:51:02 Is there any way to do this without adding them to FILES_${PN}? Jun 09 21:57:16 pumpernickel: why wouldn't you want to add them? Jun 09 21:57:40 pumpernickel: if it's the number of files you're concerned about you can simply add the parent path and all files underneath it will be added Jun 09 21:57:45 Only because I was hoping to isolate my .bb files to just the things needed to run my builds. Jun 09 21:58:26 As in, my bitbake files are almost canned, and the makefiles can change what they install without having to touch the bb recipes. Jun 09 21:58:46 It sounds like that's not possible though. Jun 09 21:59:41 it is definitely possible Jun 09 22:00:01 Well, I guess on some level, I know anything is possible with bitbake. Jun 09 22:00:03 worst case you just do FILES_${PN} += "/" and that will force everything to be picked up by the main package Jun 09 22:00:11 that's a massive hammer though Jun 09 22:00:13 I suppose I could add another class or whatever Jun 09 22:00:28 Yeah, I'll just specify the output files. Jun 09 22:00:31 again, shouldn't be necessary to go to the length of adding a class for something like this Jun 09 22:00:46 Hmm, very true. Jun 09 22:00:54 I could probably write a bit of python in the worst case. Jun 09 22:01:14 For context, right now I have a small python script (independent of bitbake), that generates my recipes. Jun 09 22:01:36 I have ~50 binaries with makefiles being referenced via externalsrc. Jun 09 22:02:21 I boiled down the requirements of my binaries into a SRCDIR var and a DEPENDS var. Jun 09 22:03:20 I've had trouble adapting to bitbake, so I often want to manipulate my recipes across all of the binaries. Jun 09 22:03:43 ah, ok... well, in that case a class may be helpful if all of these recipes behave in a common way Jun 09 22:04:28 Then I have a do_compile and do_install that call each of those directories makefiles with the exact same command. Jun 09 22:04:42 Except pointing at a different makefile. Jun 09 22:05:02 But yeah, that's my motivation. Jun 09 22:05:40 Worst case, I can add the output install files to the file that generates the recipes. Jun 09 22:05:55 I was just hoping that somehow I could get it to magically work based on where it installed the binaries. :-) Jun 09 22:06:32 That and, as I said, I was hoping to have one place to put the names of packaged files. Jun 09 22:07:52 Which is to say, inside the makefiles. Jun 09 22:08:54 well, if your binaries all went into a common location, you could definitely add just that location to FILES_${PN} Jun 09 22:09:49 FILES accepts not just files but directories (which will be pulled in recursively) Jun 09 22:13:03 Hmm Jun 09 22:13:14 Is it possible that I can just add ${D} to my files then? Jun 09 22:13:31 FILES_${PN} += ${D} Jun 09 22:16:29 well, bear in mind that FILES expects the path as it would appear on the target, not the host Jun 09 22:16:41 ${D} is a host path Jun 09 22:16:53 Oh interesting. Jun 09 22:17:44 I definitely made that mistake. Jun 09 22:19:34 I believe in recent versions we have a QA check that flags up use of ${D} in FILES since it's not an uncommon confusion Jun 09 22:33:53 bluelightning: I should be able to use the yocto 1.6 manual for reference for angstrom, right? Jun 09 22:42:28 pumpernickel: assuming you're on the *-yocto1.6 branch yes that should pretty much all be applicable Jun 09 22:45:45 XorA, apparently you used to be :) **** ENDING LOGGING AT Wed Jun 10 02:59:59 2015