From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2-g21.free.fr (smtp2-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.2]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F95CE014DE for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 03:29:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e6520eb (pac33-2-82-240-38-71.fbx.proxad.net [82.240.38.71]) (Authenticated sender: eukrea) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3125F4B016C; Thu, 30 May 2013 12:29:27 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 12:29:26 +0200 From: Eric =?UTF-8?B?QsOpbmFyZA==?= To: Javier Viguera Message-ID: <20130530122926.42e03239@e6520eb> In-Reply-To: <51A720B8.2030002@digi.com> References: <1369850483-17206-1-git-send-email-eric@eukrea.com> <1369850483-17206-3-git-send-email-eric@eukrea.com> <51A720B8.2030002@digi.com> Organization: =?UTF-8?B?RXVrcsOpYQ==?= Electromatique X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.18; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: "meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] amd-gpu-bin-mx51: new recipe X-BeenThere: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-fsl-* layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 10:29:37 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Javier, Le Thu, 30 May 2013 11:49:44 +0200, Javier Viguera a =C3=A9crit : > On 29/05/13 20:01, Eric B=C3=A9nard wrote: > > diff --git a/recipes-graphics/amd-gpu-x11-bin/amd-gpu-bin-mx51_11.09.01= .bb b/recipes-graphics/amd-gpu-x11-bin/amd-gpu-bin-mx51_11.09.01.bb > > +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE =3D "(mx5)" >=20 > > diff --git a/recipes-graphics/amd-gpu-x11-bin/amd-gpu-x11-bin-mx51_11.0= 9.01.bb b/recipes-graphics/amd-gpu-x11-bin/amd-gpu-x11-bin-mx51_11.09.01.bb > > COMPATIBLE_MACHINE =3D "${@base_contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'x11', '(= mx5)', '', d)}" >=20 > I'm still learning yocto/openembedded so bear with me if all the > following does not make sense, but is this correct? >=20 > When DISTRO_FEATURES contains x11, *both* packages will have: >=20 > COMPATIBLE_MACHINE =3D "(mx5)" >=20 > so both will be available. >=20 > When DISTRO_FEATURES does *NOT* contain x11, then: >=20 > amd-gpu-bin-mx51: COMPATIBLE_MACHINE =3D "(mx5)" > amd-gpu-x11-bin-mx51: COMPATIBLE_MACHINE =3D "" >=20 > But in this case if i have not misunderstood the semantics of > COMPATIBLE_MACHINE both will be again available as an empty > COMPATIBLE_MACHINE means that it's available. >=20 > Not sure it it's very elegant, but i have seen in meta-openembedded > layer something similar using "Invalid!" string to invalidate one or > the other recipe depending on the distro feature. >=20 > Shouldn't then be something like the following: >=20 > amd-gpu-bin-mx51: > COMPATIBLE_MACHINE =3D "${@base_contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'x11', 'Inval= id!', '(mx5)', d)}" >=20 > amd-gpu-x11-bin-mx51: > COMPATIBLE_MACHINE =3D "${@base_contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'x11', '(mx5)= ', 'Invalid!', d)}" >=20 interesting I didn't tought in that way but that seems possible and as the warnings disapeared I thought the x11 package was no more available. This raise an other problem : - when x11 is not in DISTRO_FEATURES, we shouldn't have the x11-bin package. - when x11 is in DISTRO_FEATURES, we could have the non x11 package as nothing prevents users to have x11 in their distro features _and_ to build non x11 images : how to handle that (same problem in the mx6 gpu package) ? Eric