Re: [PATCH][RFC] base.bbclass: Introduce EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG variable

[Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2807 bytes --]

On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 01:11:45PM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 13:38 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 11:09:47PM +0100, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > > * add separate variable for configuration options generated from
> > >   PACKAGECONFIG setting, this helps other bbclasses and recipes
> > >   to take advantage of PACKAGECONFIG mechanism, without including
> > >   other options from EXTRA_OECONF
> > > * e.g. meta-qt5 recipes are abusing EXTRA_OECONF to get options
> > >   from PACKAGECONFIG:
> > >   EXTRA_QMAKEVARS_PRE +=
> > >   but with
> > >   conf/distro/include/no-static-libs.inc
> > >   it means getting --disable-static as invalid option inside
> > >   EXTRA_QMAKEVARS_PRE as reported by Alexandre Belloni who tried
> > >   to use poky with meta-qt5.
> > > * once we migrate all bbclasses and recipes to
> > > EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG
> > >   we should also restrict EXTRA_OECONF append only to
> > > autotools.bbclass
> > >   like I did for cmake.bbclass
> > 
> > No comments? Should I resend without [RFC] tag?
> > 
> > This is needed to fix couple components when
> > conf/distro/include/no-static-libs.inc is used.
> 
> I can see the need for it, I'm just not 100% sure I like the form of
> the patch. No one particular thing is doing that, just a general
> feeling of unease which I can't quite put into words :(.
> 
> We continue to have a need to differentiate between "proper" autotools
> recipes and non-autotools recipes which would make this kind of issue
> easier. I guess I'm trying to weigh up whether we should consider
> something a bit more invasive to try and improve things and if we do
> that whether this patch helps or hinders that (it probably does help).

I've considered the invasive part of moving EXTRA_OECONF append to
autotools.bbclass (like I did for cmake.bbclass) but after grepping for
EXTRA_OECONF I've decided to leave it for separate step (e.g.
waf-samba.bbclass and meta-oe/recipes-benchmark/fio/fio_2.2.6.bb are
abusing EXTRA_OECONF and would break if we remove this).

EXTRA_OECMAKE wasn't afaik abused anywhere and fix for qt5 was
relatively simple:
http://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/116981/

so I went with compromise to fix what's really failing now and leave
future cleanup/improvement for later when more recipes adapt
EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG variable.

> I'm also not 100% convinced EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG is the right name,
> but I can see how you got here and I'm not sure I have a better
> suggestion (PACKAGECONFIG_CONFPARAMS? _CONFARGS?)

I was expecting this discussion, I have no strong opinion either way.
Namespacing with with PACKAGECONFIG_ prefix is good idea though.

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]