On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 19:31 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Martin Jansa <martin.ja...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 11:28:59AM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > > > On Fri, 2016-03-25 at 11:50 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 12:40:31PM +0000, Burton, Ross wrote: > > > > > On 27 February 2016 at 22:09, Martin Jansa < > > > > > martin.ja...@gmail.com> > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, some of us have been a bit busy trying to get M3 > > > > > stable. > > > > > This does > > > > > look good and I'm for squeezing it into M3. > > > > > > > > Any update on squeezing this? > > > > > > > > meta-qt5 is still broken with default poky config > > > > > > I'm a little confused, was there going to be another version with > > > some > > > tweaked variable names? > > > > Was there some agreement about variable name? > > meta-qt5 5.6 is using this so we need a final decision if it will be > merged or not. I am in favor it as I think it is clear enough.
It was an RFC and I still don't get a good feeling about the names used. I suggested: PACKAGECONFIG_CONFPARAMS or PACKAGECONFIG_CONFARGS as it then makes things slightly clearer these things are coming from PACKAGECONFIG. We have a namespace which is a bit of a mess and I'd prefer to try and improve with new things if we can... The fact meta-qt5 is already using this is bad, it really shouldn't be. We're also very close to the final build of 2.1 right now so this would be a very late change :/. Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core