From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dan.rpsys.net (5751f4a1.skybroadband.com [87.81.244.161]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BE477404E for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:53:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id t8GGr4SP001391; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:53:04 +0100 Received: from dan.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 1Z-oVi5R2tgT; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:53:04 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id t8GGqn7e001367 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:53:01 +0100 Message-ID: <1442422369.26666.147.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: Richard Purdie To: Randy MacLeod Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:52:49 +0100 In-Reply-To: <55F8D5CD.70606@windriver.com> References: <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B41976CB1@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> <55EF9D64.8000601@windriver.com> <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B41979490@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> <55F70A07.20409@windriver.com> <55F8D5CD.70606@windriver.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.11-0ubuntu3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: "openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org" Subject: Re: How to put a correct dependency with regards to gcc? X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:53:10 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 22:37 -0400, Randy MacLeod wrote: > I haven't been able to come up with a scheme that works yet. > With the patch below, I get: > > I'll need someone to explain the intent of the gcc-* pkgs > design or more time to dig though the files and history. > > Robert tells me that my idea that I need a bitbake rule to: > " call the parent implementation or > if there isn't one, return success." > has been discussed before and it is not easy to do. > > For me, this is "a nice to have" feature that could wait > for oe-core-2.1. The idea is quite simple. Rather than having a copy of the gcc source for each recipe variant (-cross-initial, -cross, -crosssdk-initial, -crosssdk, -cross-canadian etc.) we have a single copy of the source. We tried an older shared stamp scheme which was fragile and prone to weird failures. Instead we created the gcc-source recipe which is responsible for the fetch/unpack/patch/preconfigure and then each recipe can work off the shared source (and has a dependency on gcc-source). For Elena's use case, I therefore think it might be better to analyse the shared source once and not in the case of each recipe (e.g. if SRC_URI is empty). Cheers, Richard