On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 01:11:45PM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 13:38 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 11:09:47PM +0100, Martin Jansa wrote: > > > * add separate variable for configuration options generated from > > > PACKAGECONFIG setting, this helps other bbclasses and recipes > > > to take advantage of PACKAGECONFIG mechanism, without including > > > other options from EXTRA_OECONF > > > * e.g. meta-qt5 recipes are abusing EXTRA_OECONF to get options > > > from PACKAGECONFIG: > > > EXTRA_QMAKEVARS_PRE += > > > but with > > > conf/distro/include/no-static-libs.inc > > > it means getting --disable-static as invalid option inside > > > EXTRA_QMAKEVARS_PRE as reported by Alexandre Belloni who tried > > > to use poky with meta-qt5. > > > * once we migrate all bbclasses and recipes to > > > EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG > > > we should also restrict EXTRA_OECONF append only to > > > autotools.bbclass > > > like I did for cmake.bbclass > > > > No comments? Should I resend without [RFC] tag? > > > > This is needed to fix couple components when > > conf/distro/include/no-static-libs.inc is used. > > I can see the need for it, I'm just not 100% sure I like the form of > the patch. No one particular thing is doing that, just a general > feeling of unease which I can't quite put into words :(. > > We continue to have a need to differentiate between "proper" autotools > recipes and non-autotools recipes which would make this kind of issue > easier. I guess I'm trying to weigh up whether we should consider > something a bit more invasive to try and improve things and if we do > that whether this patch helps or hinders that (it probably does help).
I've considered the invasive part of moving EXTRA_OECONF append to autotools.bbclass (like I did for cmake.bbclass) but after grepping for EXTRA_OECONF I've decided to leave it for separate step (e.g. waf-samba.bbclass and meta-oe/recipes-benchmark/fio/fio_2.2.6.bb are abusing EXTRA_OECONF and would break if we remove this). EXTRA_OECMAKE wasn't afaik abused anywhere and fix for qt5 was relatively simple: http://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/116981/ so I went with compromise to fix what's really failing now and leave future cleanup/improvement for later when more recipes adapt EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG variable. > I'm also not 100% convinced EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG is the right name, > but I can see how you got here and I'm not sure I have a better > suggestion (PACKAGECONFIG_CONFPARAMS? _CONFARGS?) I was expecting this discussion, I have no strong opinion either way. Namespacing with with PACKAGECONFIG_ prefix is good idea though. -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: martin.ja...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core