Re: How to put a correct dependency with regards to gcc?

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 22:37 -0400, Randy MacLeod wrote:
> I haven't been able to come up with a scheme that works yet.
> With the patch below, I get:
> 
> I'll need someone to explain the intent of the gcc-* pkgs
> design or more time to dig though the files and history.
> 
> Robert tells me that my idea that I need a bitbake rule to:
>   " call the parent implementation or
>     if there isn't one, return success."
> has been discussed before and it is not easy to do.
> 
> For me, this is "a nice to have" feature that could wait
> for oe-core-2.1.

The idea is quite simple. Rather than having a copy of the gcc source
for each recipe variant (-cross-initial, -cross, -crosssdk-initial,
-crosssdk, -cross-canadian etc.) we have a single copy of the source.

We tried an older shared stamp scheme which was fragile and prone to
weird failures.  Instead we created the gcc-source recipe which is
responsible for the fetch/unpack/patch/preconfigure and then each recipe
can work off the shared source (and has a dependency on gcc-source).

For Elena's use case, I therefore think it might be better to analyse
the shared source once and not in the case of each recipe (e.g. if
SRC_URI is empty).

Cheers,

Richard