Re: Revert commit c2c8fe4c5629add94bd0b922f5b3446624a9f4d8

[Philip Balister <philip@balister.org>]

On 11/21/2010 09:23 AM, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> On 11/21/2010 05:17 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 6:56 AM, Andreas Oberritter
>> <obi@opendreambox.org>  wrote:
>>> On 11/19/2010 11:28 PM, Philip Balister wrote:
>>>> I'd like to revert commit c2c8fe4c5629add94bd0b922f5b3446624a9f4d8. With
>>>> this commit my build that includes angstrom-task-gnome.bb fails in a
>>>> peculiar way. Basically, my process table is filled with a task. Looks
>>>> like it is trying to run a pkg-config gtk+ operation. This is with
>>>> angstrom-2010.x and a custom machine very similar to an overo.
>>>>
>>>> I realize this is a vague description, but I do not have time to isolate
>>>> better at this time.
>>>>
>>>> Can we go ahead and revert this for now?
>>>
>>> No, please don't.
>>>
>>> I'm 100% sure that this patch is the only sane way of handling
>>> pkg-config files. I hope you agree that it wasn't possible for me to
>>> test every single package before this got merged.
>>>
>>
>> agreed. but we are soon going to make a release. So it compiled (in
>> whatever way)
>> and now it doesnt (looking from 36000 ft above).
>> So either we fix the known regressions caused or backout because we
>> can not make release in this state for sure.
>
> Soon means in 10 days AFAIK, and you can still revert the patch in the
> release branch if needed. No need to revert it in master just to hide
> already existing bugs.

If we can fix this before the release, I am happy. It looks like several 
people are working on this. I'll be traveling most of the next week, but 
I will try to keep testing .dev to make sure this is OK for the release.

Thanks for working on this issue!

Philip



>
>>> Still, the solution for problems popping up now is simple: Make sure
>>> that required libraries install their pkg-config files themselves.
>>> Usually, they would already do it, but their install rules are
>>> overridden by custom do_install or do_stage rules in their bitbake recipe.
>>>
>>> As you already mentioned, the package causing the problem is gtk+
>>> (gtk+-1.2_1.2.10.bb).
>>>
>>> The solution in this case is very likely to
>>> - remove do_stage
>>> - add ${bindir}/gtk-config to FILES_${PN}-dev
>>> - bump PR
>>>
>>
>> super can you cook up a patch.
>
> Sure, but only after I either received positive feedback or the build on
> my newly set up host finished. That's why I wrote:
>
>>> I'd have already submitted a patch, but testing takes a lot of time,
>>> especially when a recipe takes down the build machine.
>
> Regards,
> Andreas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>