On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Eric Bénard <e...@eukrea.com> wrote:
> Hi Otavio, > > Le Tue, 28 May 2013 12:18:21 -0300, > Otavio Salvador <ota...@ossystems.com.br> a écrit : > > > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Phil Blundell <p...@pbcl.net> wrote: > > > Also also, we've managed without this functionality in oe-core for some > > > time which makes me wonder how widely useful it would actually be. If > > > it's only going to be used by a few recipes then it could go in a > class, > > > or in in the recipes themselves, rather than adding parse time and > > > memory footprint to every recipe. > > > > > > > Right; let's first agree in the code so we can discuss where to put it: > > > > + need_distro_features = d.getVar('REQUIRED_DISTRO_FEATURES', > True) > > + if need_distro_features: > > + need_distro_features = need_distro_features.split() > > + distro_features = (d.getVar('DISTRO_FEATURES', True) or > > "").split() > > + for f in need_distro_features: > > + if f in distro_features: > > + break > > + else: > > + raise bb.parse.SkipPackage("missing required distro > > feature %s (not in DISTRO_FEATURES)" % need_distro_features) > > > > > If I follow you want that to avoid this line in a recipe : > COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "{@base_contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'x11', (mx5), > '', d)}" > maybe there is a more clean way to exclude this recipe when x11 > is not present without impacting the whole build system ? > This is one place it'd be used. Wayland support is another. It can be placed in a class, no problem ... I just want people to agree in the code so I can send a v2. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://projetos.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core