From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.pbcl.net ([88.198.119.4] helo=hetzner.pbcl.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RzyrT-00050g-4k for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:11:07 +0100 Received: from blundell.swaffham-prior.co.uk ([91.216.112.25] helo=[192.168.114.6]) by hetzner.pbcl.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RzyjQ-0005xX-Q1 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:02:50 +0100 Message-ID: <1329865345.2591.201.camel@x121e.pbcl.net> From: Phil Blundell To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 23:02:25 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20120221224811.GB3769@jama.jama.net> References: <1329851229-31625-1-git-send-email-steve@sakoman.com> <1329861178.20261.62.camel@ted> <20120221224811.GB3769@jama.jama.net> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] libxml2: add missing dependency on binutils X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 23:11:07 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 23:48 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 02:26:49PM -0800, Steve Sakoman wrote: > > I'll try a clean build to see if the problem persists. The libz > > change from last week seems to have put my builds in a bad state, and > > the PR bumps intended to fix things really don't seem to be fixing > > things, at least on my build machines. I suspect it might be faster > > to do a clean build than to track down where the corruption is. > > The list of PR bumped recipes probably wasn't complete for you. It was > for me, but later I've noticed that ie subversion-1.6 wasn't bumped, > because I'm using only 1.7. > > So it was complete for my default build (when those PR bumps were > applied to all included layers at once, which is not the case for most > people) and if you build different recipes or different versions you > have to add your own PR bumps in those recipes (see khem's script). > > Clean build could be faster but doesn't fix installed -dev packages on > target.. I still don't entirely understand why we don't just put libz.la back the way it was. I can understand the attraction of eliminating .la files in a general sense, but it doesn't seem as though the removal of this particular one is buying us much. What is the reason for expending so much effort on getting rid of it? p.