The unconditional removal of -DWITHOUT_XATTR accidentally introduced a
compile-time dependency on "acl", because "sys/acl.h" gets
included. This caused random compile failures.
To fix this, we introduce a proper PACKAGECONFIG for the "xattr"
support, with the distro's "xattr" feature determining t
While I haven't tried this, it is exactly what I would have expected.
Acked-by: Mark Hatle
On 8/26/15 11:10 AM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> The unconditional removal of -DWITHOUT_XATTR accidentally introduced a
> compile-time dependency on "acl", because "sys/acl.h" gets
> included. This caused random
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> The unconditional removal of -DWITHOUT_XATTR accidentally introduced a
> compile-time dependency on "acl", because "sys/acl.h" gets
> included. This caused random compile failures.
>
> To fix this, we introduce a proper PACKAGECONFIG for the "
On Aug 26, 2015 9:11 AM, "Patrick Ohly" wrote:
>
> The unconditional removal of -DWITHOUT_XATTR accidentally introduced a
> compile-time dependency on "acl", because "sys/acl.h" gets
> included. This caused random compile failures.
>
> To fix this, we introduce a proper PACKAGECONFIG for the "xatt
On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 12:16 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>
> On Aug 26, 2015 9:11 AM, "Patrick Ohly"
> wrote:
> > +EXTRA_OEMAKE = "'CC=${CC}' 'RANLIB=${RANLIB}' 'AR=${AR}' 'CFLAGS=${CFLAGS}
> > ${@bb.utils.contains('PACKAGECONFIG', 'xattr', '', '-DWITHOUT_XATTR', d)}
> > -I${S}/include' 'BUILDDIR=${S
On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 12:02 -0700, Andre McCurdy wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > The unconditional removal of -DWITHOUT_XATTR accidentally introduced a
> > compile-time dependency on "acl", because "sys/acl.h" gets
> > included. This caused random compile failures
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> The one in bb.utils.contains()? That is there intentionally: it's for
> the "xattr enabled" case, in which case nothing gets added to
> EXTRA_OEMAKE.
is it required to have extra " ?
can it work without it
--
___
On Thu, 2015-08-27 at 06:32 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > The one in bb.utils.contains()? That is there intentionally: it's for
> > the "xattr enabled" case, in which case nothing gets added to
> > EXTRA_OEMAKE.
>
> is it required to have extra
