On Sun, 2014-08-17 at 10:33 +0200, Jacob Kroon wrote: > On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Richard Purdie > <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > [This is an RFC which depends on a patch to bitbake to > operate] > > Currently, we have a mess of dependencies for pixbufcache and > even then > it breaks since they might be controlled by PACKAGECONFIG. > > Instead, this patch proposes an alternative approach where we > allow > "fixups" from a sceneQueueComplete() event at the end of the > setscene > process. We signal the need for these using simply stamp > files. > > The one downside is that the processing code needs to be in a > global > event handler like base.bbclass rather than > pixbufcache.bbclass but this > is probably a price worth paying to avoid the dependency mess? > > Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie > <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> > > > > Instead of having the sstate_postinst() touch "needpixbuf", could we > make it write out the actual script that needs to be executed ? > > Then base.bbclass could iterate over any scripts installed by any > sstate_postinst() and execute them. At least this would better isolate > the pixbuf-code to pixbufcache.bbclass, and make the snippet in > base.bbclass more generic.
It does become trickier to avoid races when writing out that script. Touching the file is rather easy from a lock perspective :) Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core