On Thursday 06 March 2014 20:21:22 Martin Jansa wrote: > On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 05:59:29PM +0000, Paul Eggleton wrote: > > On Thursday 06 March 2014 18:04:50 Martin Jansa wrote: > > > * it has runtime dependency on TUNE_PKGARCH bash, so it cannot be > > > allarch > > > > As we've already discussed this is not universally true. There are other > > ways to solve this. > > Like making it special case like packagegroups? That is still making me > headaches when some library (for some reason) included in packagegroup > is renamed thanks to debian.bbclass and packagegroup isn't rebuilt, so > it breaks do_rootfs..
Did you report this? FWIW it's the first I recall hearing of the problem; perhaps I just missed it. > I would rather build bash-completion only once per architecture than > rebuilding it as "allarch" every time I'm building for MACHINE with > different TUNE_PKGARCH. As I said last time, I'm not arguing that rebuilding allarch recipes on machine change is preferable - obviously it isn't. On the other hand, what you're doing with this kind of change is telling the build system that the recipe needs to be built differently depending on what the target architecture is, which is *not* true; this is only being done to work around the build system making an assumption that the rebuild needs to happen. Fix the assumption and the problem is fixed, properly. If we need to make changes to the core or BitBake to make it easier to handle this properly, by all means let's do that; but if we go down the road of applying the workaround to every recipe where we hit this issue (and as we have seen it's not just one or two recipes) we will never get around to fixing the underlying problem. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core