Re: [OE-core] [PATCH][RFC] base.bbclass: Introduce EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG variable

2016-04-19 Thread Martin Jansa 
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 07:49:51PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Richard Purdie
>  wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 19:31 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Martin Jansa  >> > wrote:
> >> > 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
> 
> I like CONFARGS.

I'll send patch with PACKAGECONFIG_CONFARGS and wait until it's merged
somewhere, before updating usages of this in other layers (so that I
don't need to redo it again if the name is changed again).

> > 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 :/.

meta-qt5/master isn't using it, it's only in master-next, because
without this change the builds are broken when people use
openembedded-core/meta/conf/distro/include/no-static-libs.inc
e.g. with default Poky config.

> I think it is a safe change but I am fine in postponing it for 2.2. In
> this case we need to revert the usage of it in meta-qt5 (which I also
> support).

Nothing needs to be reverted, because it wasn't merged in any permanent
layer.

If it doesn't go to 2.1 then I'll leave meta-qt5/krogoth version broken
for Poky builds with no-static-libs.inc.

-- 
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

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH][RFC] base.bbclass: Introduce EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG variable

2016-04-18 Thread Otavio Salvador 
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Richard Purdie
 wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 19:31 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Martin Jansa > > wrote:
>> > 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

I like 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 :/.

I think it is a safe change but I am fine in postponing it for 2.2. In
this case we need to revert the usage of it in meta-qt5 (which I also
support).

Martin?

-- 
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.brhttp://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
-- 
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH][RFC] base.bbclass: Introduce EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG variable

2016-04-18 Thread Richard Purdie 
On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 19:31 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Martin Jansa  > wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 11:28:59AM +, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2016-03-25 at 11:50 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 12:40:31PM +, 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

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH][RFC] base.bbclass: Introduce EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG variable

2016-04-18 Thread Otavio Salvador 
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Martin Jansa  wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 11:28:59AM +, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> On Fri, 2016-03-25 at 11:50 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 12:40:31PM +, Burton, Ross wrote:
>> > > On 27 February 2016 at 22:09, 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
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > 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.

-- 
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.brhttp://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
-- 
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH][RFC] base.bbclass: Introduce EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG variable

2016-03-25 Thread Martin Jansa 
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 11:28:59AM +, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-03-25 at 11:50 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 12:40:31PM +, Burton, Ross wrote:
> > > On 27 February 2016 at 22:09, 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
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 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?

:)

-- 
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

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH][RFC] base.bbclass: Introduce EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG variable

2016-03-25 Thread Richard Purdie 
On Fri, 2016-03-25 at 11:50 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 12:40:31PM +, Burton, Ross wrote:
> > On 27 February 2016 at 22:09, 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
> > > 
> > 
> > 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?

Cheers,

Richard
-- 
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH][RFC] base.bbclass: Introduce EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG variable

2016-03-25 Thread Martin Jansa 
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 12:40:31PM +, Burton, Ross wrote:
> On 27 February 2016 at 22:09, 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
> >
> 
> 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

-- 
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

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH][RFC] base.bbclass: Introduce EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG variable

2016-03-02 Thread Martin Jansa 
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 01:11:45PM +, 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

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH][RFC] base.bbclass: Introduce EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG variable

2016-03-02 Thread Richard Purdie 
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'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?)

Cheers,

Richard


-- 
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH][RFC] base.bbclass: Introduce EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG variable

2016-03-02 Thread Burton, Ross 
On 27 February 2016 at 22:09, 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
>

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.

Ross
-- 
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH][RFC] base.bbclass: Introduce EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG variable

2016-03-02 Thread Martin Jansa 
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.

Cheers,


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- 
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

[OE-core] [PATCH][RFC] base.bbclass: Introduce EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG variable

2016-02-27 Thread Martin Jansa 
* 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

Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa 
---
 meta/classes/base.bbclass  | 9 ++---
 meta/classes/cmake.bbclass | 2 ++
 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/meta/classes/base.bbclass b/meta/classes/base.bbclass
index 1372f38..6e94995 100644
--- a/meta/classes/base.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/base.bbclass
@@ -428,9 +428,12 @@ python () {
 extraconf.append(items[1])
 appendVar('DEPENDS', extradeps)
 appendVar('RDEPENDS_${PN}', extrardeps)
-if bb.data.inherits_class('cmake', d):
-appendVar('EXTRA_OECMAKE', extraconf)
-else:
+appendVar('EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG', extraconf)
+
+# TODO once are all recipes/bbclass abusign EXTRA_OECONF
+# to get PACKAGECONFIG options fixed to use EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG
+# move this append to autotools.bbclass
+if not bb.data.inherits_class('cmake', d):
 appendVar('EXTRA_OECONF', extraconf)
 
 pn = d.getVar('PN', True)
diff --git a/meta/classes/cmake.bbclass b/meta/classes/cmake.bbclass
index 22cd61e..122718e 100644
--- a/meta/classes/cmake.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/cmake.bbclass
@@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ OECMAKE_EXTRA_ROOT_PATH ?= ""
 OECMAKE_FIND_ROOT_PATH_MODE_PROGRAM = "ONLY"
 OECMAKE_FIND_ROOT_PATH_MODE_PROGRAM_class-native = "BOTH"
 
+EXTRA_OECMAKE_append = " ${EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG}"
+
 # CMake expects target architectures in the format of uname(2),
 # which do not always match TARGET_ARCH, so all the necessary
 # conversions should happen here.
-- 
2.7.1

-- 
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core