From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.173.237] helo=tim.rpsys.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RYxtc-0003Hp-0B for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2011 11:41:42 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pB9AYorY031568 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 10:34:50 GMT Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 30716-06 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 10:34:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pB9AYgLK031562 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 10:34:43 GMT Message-ID: <1323426892.5309.120.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 10:34:52 +0000 In-Reply-To: References: <7ceb01f6db6edfad6c78c5a7ebc685c23bb11358.1323327959.git.xiaofeng.yan@windriver.com> <67C6F211-C6C2-4655-889A-A254F4E0D7D9@dominion.thruhere.net> <1323363345.5309.42.camel@ted> <1323364334.26081.383.camel@phil-desktop> <1323381564.5309.65.camel@ted> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.1- Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] gtk.inc: add feature based on directfb X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 10:41:42 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 07:51 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: > Op 8 dec. 2011, om 22:59 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: > > > On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 17:12 +0000, Phil Blundell wrote: > >> On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 16:55 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > >>> The question is whether it makes sense to have directfb and X based gtk > >>> in the same builds and package feeds or not. I can see that it might be > >>> desired and that it likely is possible. > >> > >> This is true, though there's nothing to stop a distro that particularly > >> wants this from inventing their own stub recipes which just set > >> PACKAGECONFIG appropriately and then require the generic version. So > >> it's really just a question of what we want to be the default in > >> oe-core. > >> > >> Also note that, although you can parallel install multiple versions of > >> the gtk+ runtime on the target system, if you want the build system to > >> be deterministic then (in the absence of per-recipe sysroot > >> construction) you need some way to decide which one gets to provide the > >> gtk+-2.0.pc that other recipes will build against. (The different > >> targets have different library sonames so you can't just swap them out > >> at run time: a given binary will remain coupled to the particular Gtk > >> variant that it was compiled against.) And if the two variants could > >> conceivably be different versions of GTK then you also need a way to > >> deconflict ${includedir}/gtk-2.0. > >> > >> So it isn't quite as simple as just having the two recipes, there is a > >> bit of extra policy involved as well. And of course there would be all > >> the normal overhead in terms of parse time, memory footprint and > >> maintenance burden associated with having more recipes. > > > > This is the key detail I was missing. I thought they just might have > > been a drop in replacement. > > > > That isn't the case so this makes the choice easier, I think separate > > recipes don't make sense based on this. > > > >> So, in light of all the above plus the fact that everything is different > >> with Gtk+3 anyway, my preference for supporting directfb on gtk+2 in > >> oe-core would be to use PACKAGECONFIG and not have separate recipe > >> files. > > > > Agreed, given the above. > > So to be safe and give other directfb implementations a change, can > this PACKAGECONFIG option be named 'gtk-directfb' in DISTRO_FEATURES? I think that is reasonable. Cheers, Richard