On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 07:51 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:02:44AM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 00:50 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:11:16PM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 22:36 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote: > > > > > Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <[email protected]> > > > > > --- > > > > > meta/recipes-gnome/gtk+/gtk+.inc | 4 ++++ > > > > > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > I really don't like the message having a gtk+-native around sends out. > > > > Why do we need this? > > > > > > See cover letter if you haven't already. > > > > Sorry, I'd looked at it but I'd missed the key bit. I think I thought > > the URL was a pull URL and my eyes skimmed it. > > No problem, > > > To be honest I don't think the update-icon-cache is good enough reason > > to build a full gtk+-native. If we let these pieces in the dependencies > > have a tendency to grow and people have no incentive to try and fix > > these issues. > > Well agreed, but most of those natives are needed for librsvg-native > which in turn is used in navit build to generate icons (which I can > hardly replace with something thiner then librsvg and using e.g. > autodetected ksvgtopng from host is even worse for reproducible builds).
librsvg-native I don't mind as much, I'm ok with taking those patches. > So for minimal gtk+-native I only need libx11-native and > libxrander-native, but the problem is that PACKAGECONFIG without that > fix ignores all -native depends and with fix it correctly adds -native > to all non-native deps added by PACKAGECONFIG > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2012-March/019348.html Right, I'm aware of that issue and sorry for not responding yet. Basically, I wanted to do some proper patch review and write a reasonable response to it and I've been lacking the time to do so. Firstly, I agree we need to fix it there is no question of that. The patch moving everything to base.bbclass concerns me though, not least as it undoes a lot of the work I've been trying to do with regard to abstracting the bbclassextend code into lib/oe/*.py. I therefore think an alternative approach is going to be needed but I've not managed to come up with that yet :(. > > I'd like to better understand why there is no other way to avoid this. > > I can look into gtk+3 build what else we need to provide to be able to > build without --enable-gtk2-dependency or how to disable > update-icon-cache during build so that people with gtk+ installed on > host and without get the same result package, but I'm not really > interested in gtk+3 so I was just fixing another build failure :/ so it > can take some time... This is one case I think we need to do the right thing and not take short cuts. I don't mind the extends for librsvg-native but I don't want to take gtk+-native or pango-native and any of the the dependencies only they need. I also agree we need to fix PACKAGECONFIG but I don't like the direction the patch takes and haven't had time to come up with an alternative. I wish I had more time and was able to give a better reply. Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
