On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 22:37 -0400, Randy MacLeod wrote: > I haven't been able to come up with a scheme that works yet. > With the patch below, I get: > > I'll need someone to explain the intent of the gcc-* pkgs > design or more time to dig though the files and history. > > Robert tells me that my idea that I need a bitbake rule to: > " call the parent implementation or > if there isn't one, return success." > has been discussed before and it is not easy to do. > > For me, this is "a nice to have" feature that could wait > for oe-core-2.1.
The idea is quite simple. Rather than having a copy of the gcc source for each recipe variant (-cross-initial, -cross, -crosssdk-initial, -crosssdk, -cross-canadian etc.) we have a single copy of the source. We tried an older shared stamp scheme which was fragile and prone to weird failures. Instead we created the gcc-source recipe which is responsible for the fetch/unpack/patch/preconfigure and then each recipe can work off the shared source (and has a dependency on gcc-source). For Elena's use case, I therefore think it might be better to analyse the shared source once and not in the case of each recipe (e.g. if SRC_URI is empty). Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core