From: Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>
To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org
Subject: Re: RFC: thinking about DEPENDS properties
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:27:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <glnjmv$kuc$1@ger.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <497EEAE6.7090904@gmx.net>
On 27-01-09 12:07, Robert Schuster wrote:
> Hi,
> today I was thinking about some missing semantics in OE's DEPENDS
> variable and had the idea of reusing the way we write SRC_URI entries
> for them.
>
> The issues:
>
> 1) Strong dependencies
>
> Some recipes have a strong dependency on another recipe. Take llvm as an
> example. llvm puts a bunch of static libraries (.a) and object code
> files into staging which another program links to. So, if llvm is
> recompiled (e.g. changed CFLAGS or applied a patch) those having a
> dependency on llvm should be recompiled as well.
Isn't that what BB_STAMP_POLICY=whitelist and BB_STAMP_POLICY=full
accomplish?
regards,
Koen
>
> In order to express this, I would write:
>
> DEPENDS += "llvm;strong=true"
>
> 2) Minimum& Maximum supported versions
> Some recipes cannot be built with certain versions of other recipes.
>
> DEPENDS += "automake-native;minver=1.10"
>
> If the distro uses a lower automake version OE should error out when
> someone tries to build that recipe:
>
> ERROR: Recipe 'foo' needs at least 'automake-native 1.10' but
> 'PREFERRED_VERSION_automake-native' is set to '1.9.6'.
>
> --
>
> I know this brings in a lot of complicated things to think about, e.g.
> what is the result of:
>
> foo.inc: DEPENDS = "bar;minver=0.8;maxver=0.9"
>
> foo_1.0: require foo.inc
> DEPENDS += "bar;minver=1.0"
>
> Perhaps to many components in OE already expect DEPENDS to be a
> whitespace separated list of words and we should be add another variable
> whose only purpose is to set properties for existing DEPENDS entries:
>
>
> foo_1.0:
> require foo.inc
> # Replaces value from foo.inc
> DEPENDSPROPS = "bar;minver=1.0"
>
> --
>
> My main concern is that the knowledge about which recipe can live in
> harmony with another is currently implicit. There is no way to express
> this except by writing a comment (which is almost never done).
>
> Regards
> Robert
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-27 18:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-27 11:07 RFC: thinking about DEPENDS properties Robert Schuster
2009-01-27 11:29 ` Phil Blundell
2009-01-27 18:27 ` Koen Kooi [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='glnjmv$kuc$1@ger.gmane.org' \
--to=k.kooi@student.utwente.nl \
--cc=openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org \
--cc=openembedded-devel@openembedded.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.