Re: [meta-raspberrypi][PATCH v2] qtbase: enable Raspberry Pi support

[Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com>]

On 26/10/2015 9:54 PM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Monday 26 October 2015 21:48:24 Jonathan Liu wrote:
>> On 26/10/2015 8:41 PM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
>>> On Monday 26 October 2015 10:15:49 Andrei Gherzan wrote:
>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 08:08:29AM +0000, Paul Eggleton wrote:
>>>>> On Monday 26 October 2015 09:43:08 Jonathan Liu wrote:
>>>>>> [Support #16]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    recipes-qt/qt5/qtbase_%.bbappend | 6 ++++++
>>>>>>    1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>>>>    create mode 100644 recipes-qt/qt5/qtbase_%.bbappend
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/recipes-qt/qt5/qtbase_%.bbappend
>>>>>> b/recipes-qt/qt5/qtbase_%.bbappend new file mode 100644
>>>>>> index 0000000..3e5e667
>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>> +++ b/recipes-qt/qt5/qtbase_%.bbappend
>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
>>>>>> +do_configure_prepend_rpi() {
>>>>>> +    cat > ${S}/mkspecs/oe-device-extra.pri << 'EOF'
>>>>>> +EGLFS_DEVICE_INTEGRATION = eglfs_brcm
>>>>>> +QMAKE_LIBS_EGL = -lEGL -lGLESv2
>>>>>> +EOF
>>>>>> +}
>>>>> I'm wondering if this is a good idea or not. I appreciate the intention,
>>>>> but does bbappending non-machine-specific recipes like this play well
>>>>> when you have other machines enabled in the same distro?
>>>> But this change will be applied only for _rpi. How is this affecting
>>>> other
>>>> machines?
>>> If everything works such that the resulting packages get marked as
>>> machine-
>>> specific and the package manager correctly installs them in preference to
>>> the generic architecture packages on the machines in question, then there
>>> won't be a massive problem (though the side-effect is probably that any
>>> recipes depending on qtbase will also become machine-specific, that is
>>> possibly more of an issue).
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Paul
>> Good point. The package arch needs to machine-specific. I will send a v3
>> to fix this.
> I think that will get taken care of automatically by virtue of the machine-
> specific override. My question is more about:
>
> 1) Will that mechanism entirely work, including desired behaviours in both the
> build system and the package manager, and
>
> 2) Are any side-effects worth it?
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
It wasn't automatically taken care of. I checked the package 
architecture and it was incorrect with the v2 patch.
The machine-specific architecture has a higher priority (from my reading 
of the opkg handling) so opkg at least should prefer it if a more 
generic architecture package is also present. I haven't tested it 
thoroughly though.

It seems worth it to have OpenGL ES graphics acceleration.

Regards,
Jonathan