On 31 July 2018 at 02:06, Andre McCurdy <armccu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Richard Purdie > <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 14:44 -0700, Andre McCurdy wrote: >>> Currently the openssl 1.0 recipe defines a dependency on >>> hostperl-runtime-native and the openssl 1.1 recipe does not. Both run >>> "perl ./Configure ..." as part of do_configure(). >>> >>> Since hostperl-runtime-native is included in ASSUME_PROVIDED, is it >>> really useful for the openssl 1.0 recipe to list it in DEPENDS? >>> >>> ie is the openssl 1.0 recipe being unnecessarily complex or is the >>> openssl 1.1 recipe being too simplistic? >> >> It is useful for things to list their dependencies and we did have an >> effort to actually list things out so we know ASSUME_PROVIDED is >> correct. This means we can spot areas we might be able to trim back >> dependencies (amongst other reasons). >> >> With the introduction of HOSTTOOLS, its perhaps less needed than it was >> but in principle it is still useful to know which things need a given >> item, particularly where its more unusual. I'd still be interested in >> trying to cut back HOSTTOOLS a bit more. >> >> The 1.1 recipe was pretty heavily cut back, probably too much so based >> on some of the patches we've been getting... > > Thanks. Is there an obvious reason why both recipes shouldn't be using > perl-native rather than hostperl-runtime-native? Building with > perl-native seems to work fine.
Because using the host perl means not depending on perl-native, which should only be used if we need to run a module that we built. Ross -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core