Re: [RESEND PATCH] mesa: upgrade 10.6.3 -> 11.1.1

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 21:04 +0000, Burton, Ross wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 5 February 2016 at 20:55, Nicolas Dechesne <
> nicolas.dechesne@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > Agreed - some may not want openssl at all and being able to
> > switch it for
> > > another alternative would be useful.
> > 
> > sure. but, then I have some questions..
> > 
> > 1. which one we default to? openssl?
> > 
> > 2. which one we support, from configure.ac:
> > 
> >         [choose SHA1 implementation])])
> > case "x$with_sha1" in
> > x | xlibc | xlibmd | xlibnettle | xlibgcrypt | xlibcrypto |
> > xlibsha1 |
> > xCommonCrypto | xCryptoAPI)
> >   ;;
> nettle / gcrypt / crypto are all in oe-core.  I presume that's BSD's
> "throw it all in" libc.
> 
> nettle seems nice and low down the stack and modern.
>   
> >  3. is there a good way to handle 'multiple choice' with
> > PACKAGECONFIG?
> > How can we prevent more than 1 PACKAGECONFIG to be set (nicely)?
> With a comment saying "pick one of these", and nothing in the
> disabled case.

You can always put in a small anonymous python fragment which enforces
"only X or Y or Z".

Not exactly neat, but...

Cheers,

Richard