[PATCH 1/2] freerdp: rdpepends on xprop

[PATCH 1/2] freerdp: rdpepends on xprop

[Otavio Salvador]

Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>
---
 recipes/freerdp/freerdp.inc |    3 ++-
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/recipes/freerdp/freerdp.inc b/recipes/freerdp/freerdp.inc
index c75175e..d1375fd 100644
--- a/recipes/freerdp/freerdp.inc
+++ b/recipes/freerdp/freerdp.inc
@@ -4,10 +4,11 @@
 DESCRIPTION = "FreeRDP RDP client"
 HOMEPAGE = "http://freerdp.sourceforge.net"
 DEPENDS = "virtual/libx11 openssl libxcursor cups alsa-lib"
+RDEPENDS += "xprop"
 SECTION = "x11/network"
 LICENSE = "Apache-2.0"
 
-INC_PR = "r5"
+INC_PR = "r6"
 
 inherit pkgconfig autotools
 
-- 
1.7.2.3

[PATCH 2/2] conf/bitbake.conf: add DISTRO_ARCH and MACHINE_DISTRO_ARCH

[Otavio Salvador]

Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>
---
 conf/bitbake.conf |    4 +++-
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/conf/bitbake.conf b/conf/bitbake.conf
index 1002c01..b018f08 100644
--- a/conf/bitbake.conf
+++ b/conf/bitbake.conf
@@ -132,7 +132,9 @@ PACKAGE_ARCH = "${BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH}"
 PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS ?= ""
 MACHINE_ARCH = "${@oe.utils.ifelse(bool(d.getVar('MACHINE', True)), '${MACHINE}', \
                                    'BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH')}"
-PACKAGE_ARCHS = "all any noarch ${TARGET_ARCH} ${PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS} ${MACHINE}"
+DISTRO_ARCH = "${TARGET_ARCH}-${DISTRO}"
+MACHINE_DISTRO_ARCH = "${MACHINE_ARCH}-${DISTRO}"
+PACKAGE_ARCHS = "all any noarch ${TARGET_ARCH} ${PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS} ${DISTRO_ARCH} ${MACHINE_DISTRO_ARCH} ${MACHINE}"
 
 MULTIMACH_ARCH = "${PACKAGE_ARCH}"
 MULTIMACH_TARGET_SYS = "${MULTIMACH_ARCH}${TARGET_VENDOR}-${TARGET_OS}"
-- 
1.7.2.3

Re: [PATCH 2/2] conf/bitbake.conf: add DISTRO_ARCH and MACHINE_DISTRO_ARCH

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

What does it do and why is it needed?

On 28-02-11 14:26, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>
> ---
>  conf/bitbake.conf |    4 +++-
>  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/conf/bitbake.conf b/conf/bitbake.conf
> index 1002c01..b018f08 100644
> --- a/conf/bitbake.conf
> +++ b/conf/bitbake.conf
> @@ -132,7 +132,9 @@ PACKAGE_ARCH = "${BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH}"
>  PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS ?= ""
>  MACHINE_ARCH = "${@oe.utils.ifelse(bool(d.getVar('MACHINE', True)), '${MACHINE}', \
>                                     'BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH')}"
> -PACKAGE_ARCHS = "all any noarch ${TARGET_ARCH} ${PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS} ${MACHINE}"
> +DISTRO_ARCH = "${TARGET_ARCH}-${DISTRO}"
> +MACHINE_DISTRO_ARCH = "${MACHINE_ARCH}-${DISTRO}"
> +PACKAGE_ARCHS = "all any noarch ${TARGET_ARCH} ${PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS} ${DISTRO_ARCH} ${MACHINE_DISTRO_ARCH} ${MACHINE}"
>  
>  MULTIMACH_ARCH = "${PACKAGE_ARCH}"
>  MULTIMACH_TARGET_SYS = "${MULTIMACH_ARCH}${TARGET_VENDOR}-${TARGET_OS}"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFNa7jDMkyGM64RGpERAlXgAJsF7DlPyuZo8XyGq0U5TOYt3bLxhQCgtsS5
rfWBVwGPaGgjvc84OCecAqw=
=HD2X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [PATCH 2/2] conf/bitbake.conf: add DISTRO_ARCH and MACHINE_DISTRO_ARCH

[Phil Blundell]

On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 13:26 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> -PACKAGE_ARCHS = "all any noarch ${TARGET_ARCH} ${PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS} ${MACHINE}"
> +DISTRO_ARCH = "${TARGET_ARCH}-${DISTRO}"
> +MACHINE_DISTRO_ARCH = "${MACHINE_ARCH}-${DISTRO}"
> +PACKAGE_ARCHS = "all any noarch ${TARGET_ARCH} ${PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS} ${DISTRO_ARCH} ${MACHINE_DISTRO_ARCH} ${MACHINE}"

This seems a bit weird.  Any given package feed (or TMPDIR) is, more or
less by definition, going to correspond to a single DISTRO so I can't
see any situation in which these extra archs would be useful.  What's
the use-case for this?

p.

Re: [PATCH 2/2] conf/bitbake.conf: add DISTRO_ARCH and MACHINE_DISTRO_ARCH

[Otavio Salvador]

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 16:57, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 13:26 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> -PACKAGE_ARCHS = "all any noarch ${TARGET_ARCH} ${PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS} ${MACHINE}"
>> +DISTRO_ARCH = "${TARGET_ARCH}-${DISTRO}"
>> +MACHINE_DISTRO_ARCH = "${MACHINE_ARCH}-${DISTRO}"
>> +PACKAGE_ARCHS = "all any noarch ${TARGET_ARCH} ${PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS} ${DISTRO_ARCH} ${MACHINE_DISTRO_ARCH} ${MACHINE}"
>
> This seems a bit weird.  Any given package feed (or TMPDIR) is, more or
> less by definition, going to correspond to a single DISTRO so I can't
> see any situation in which these extra archs would be useful.  What's
> the use-case for this?

We have a set of products that reuse a common distro definition but
has different needs on a small set of packages. To avoid having them
all rebuild we set those to DISTRO_ARCH and the ones that depends on
machine and distro to MACHINE_DISTRO_ARCH avoiding a lot of rebuilding
and CPU time.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: [PATCH 2/2] conf/bitbake.conf: add DISTRO_ARCH and MACHINE_DISTRO_ARCH

[Phil Blundell]

On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 17:04 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> We have a set of products that reuse a common distro definition but
> has different needs on a small set of packages. To avoid having them
> all rebuild we set those to DISTRO_ARCH and the ones that depends on
> machine and distro to MACHINE_DISTRO_ARCH avoiding a lot of rebuilding
> and CPU time.

That sounds to me like you're using ${DISTRO} for a purpose that was not
really intended.  I do have some sympathy for the scenario you mention
but I'm not convinced that adding these new ARCHS for everyone is the
right answer. 

Obviously you're welcome to bash PACKAGE_ARCHS any way you want in your
own DISTRO.conf file and I think that's probably the right place for
this sort of thing rather than putting it in the global bitbake.conf and
causing extra complexity for everyone.  Or maybe you could consider
using ${MACHINE}, which is already a PACKAGE_ARCH, to discriminate
between the different packages.

p.

Re: [PATCH 2/2] conf/bitbake.conf: add DISTRO_ARCH and MACHINE_DISTRO_ARCH

[Otavio Salvador]

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 17:54, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 17:04 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> We have a set of products that reuse a common distro definition but
>> has different needs on a small set of packages. To avoid having them
>> all rebuild we set those to DISTRO_ARCH and the ones that depends on
>> machine and distro to MACHINE_DISTRO_ARCH avoiding a lot of rebuilding
>> and CPU time.
>
> That sounds to me like you're using ${DISTRO} for a purpose that was not
> really intended.  I do have some sympathy for the scenario you mention
> but I'm not convinced that adding these new ARCHS for everyone is the
> right answer.
>
> Obviously you're welcome to bash PACKAGE_ARCHS any way you want in your
> own DISTRO.conf file and I think that's probably the right place for
> this sort of thing rather than putting it in the global bitbake.conf and
> causing extra complexity for everyone.  Or maybe you could consider
> using ${MACHINE}, which is already a PACKAGE_ARCH, to discriminate
> between the different packages.

Adding it to my distro seems to solve my problem. The problem of using
MACHINE is that I need it to be rebuild if DISTRO changes, hence
MACHINE_DISTRO_ARCH.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: [PATCH 1/2] freerdp: rdpepends on xprop

[Phil Blundell]

On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 13:26 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> +RDEPENDS += "xprop"

I'm surprised that recipe_sanity didn't object to that.  Is this really
what you want?

p.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] freerdp: rdpepends on xprop

[Otavio Salvador]

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 16:55, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 13:26 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> +RDEPENDS += "xprop"
>
> I'm surprised that recipe_sanity didn't object to that.  Is this really
> what you want?

Why? I failed to see why it is wrong. Mind to clarify?

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: [PATCH 1/2] freerdp: rdpepends on xprop

[Phil Blundell]

On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 17:06 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 16:55, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 13:26 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> +RDEPENDS += "xprop"
> >
> > I'm surprised that recipe_sanity didn't object to that.  Is this really
> > what you want?
> 
> Why? I failed to see why it is wrong. Mind to clarify?

Bare vars like that will apply to all the PACKAGES.  That's seldom
useful, which is why there is a QA check to detect this sort of thing
and print a warning.

p.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] freerdp: rdpepends on xprop

[Otavio Salvador]

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 17:18, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 17:06 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 16:55, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 13:26 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> >> +RDEPENDS += "xprop"
>> >
>> > I'm surprised that recipe_sanity didn't object to that.  Is this really
>> > what you want?
>>
>> Why? I failed to see why it is wrong. Mind to clarify?
>
> Bare vars like that will apply to all the PACKAGES.  That's seldom
> useful, which is why there is a QA check to detect this sort of thing
> and print a warning.

Indeed. Got it now. Will fix it.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

[PATCH 1/3] freerdp: rdepends on xprop

[Otavio Salvador]

Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>
---
 recipes/freerdp/freerdp.inc |    3 ++-
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/recipes/freerdp/freerdp.inc b/recipes/freerdp/freerdp.inc
index c75175e..0690d6e 100644
--- a/recipes/freerdp/freerdp.inc
+++ b/recipes/freerdp/freerdp.inc
@@ -4,10 +4,11 @@
 DESCRIPTION = "FreeRDP RDP client"
 HOMEPAGE = "http://freerdp.sourceforge.net"
 DEPENDS = "virtual/libx11 openssl libxcursor cups alsa-lib"
+RDEPENDS_${PN} += "xprop"
 SECTION = "x11/network"
 LICENSE = "Apache-2.0"
 
-INC_PR = "r5"
+INC_PR = "r6"
 
 inherit pkgconfig autotools
 
-- 
1.7.2.3

Re: [PATCH 1/3] freerdp: rdepends on xprop

[Phil Blundell]

On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 17:28 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>
> ---
>  recipes/freerdp/freerdp.inc |    3 ++-
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

Thanks, that's better.  It seems pretty lame that freerdp does this
popen("xprop...") thing at all, and even lamer that it apparently
doesn't cope with xprop not being there, but that isn't really your
problem.  So I think you can go ahead and check this in.

Acked-by: Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org>

p.

Re: [PATCH 1/3] freerdp: rdepends on xprop

[Otavio Salvador]

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 17:57, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 17:28 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>
>> ---
>>  recipes/freerdp/freerdp.inc |    3 ++-
>>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> Thanks, that's better.  It seems pretty lame that freerdp does this
> popen("xprop...") thing at all, and even lamer that it apparently
> doesn't cope with xprop not being there, but that isn't really your
> problem.  So I think you can go ahead and check this in.
>
> Acked-by: Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org>

Yep; this needs improvement but I don't want to waste time looking at
it, at this moment.

If you can, please push it for me.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: [PATCH 1/3] freerdp: rdepends on xprop

[Phil Blundell]

On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 17:58 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> If you can, please push it for me.

OK.  I don't have my SSH key with me at the moment but I can push it
later today unless someone else does so first.

p.