Re: [PATCH][RFC] base.bbclass: Introduce EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG variable

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

On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 19:31 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 11:28:59AM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2016-03-25 at 11:50 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 12:40:31PM +0000, Burton, Ross wrote:
> > > > > On 27 February 2016 at 22:09, Martin Jansa <
> > > > > martin.jansa@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > * add separate variable for configuration options generated
> > > > > > from
> > > > > >   PACKAGECONFIG setting, this helps other bbclasses and
> > > > > > recipes
> > > > > >   to take advantage of PACKAGECONFIG mechanism, without
> > > > > > including
> > > > > >   other options from EXTRA_OECONF
> > > > > > * e.g. meta-qt5 recipes are abusing EXTRA_OECONF to get
> > > > > > options
> > > > > >   from PACKAGECONFIG:
> > > > > >   EXTRA_QMAKEVARS_PRE +=
> > > > > >   but with
> > > > > >   conf/distro/include/no-static-libs.inc
> > > > > >   it means getting --disable-static as invalid option
> > > > > > inside
> > > > > >   EXTRA_QMAKEVARS_PRE as reported by Alexandre Belloni who
> > > > > > tried
> > > > > >   to use poky with meta-qt5.
> > > > > > * once we migrate all bbclasses and recipes to
> > > > > > EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG
> > > > > >   we should also restrict EXTRA_OECONF append only to
> > > > > > autotools.bbclass
> > > > > >   like I did for cmake.bbclass
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sorry, some of us have been a bit busy trying to get M3
> > > > > stable.
> > > > >  This does
> > > > > look good and I'm for squeezing it into M3.
> > > > 
> > > > Any update on squeezing this?
> > > > 
> > > > meta-qt5 is still broken with default poky config
> > > 
> > > I'm a little confused, was there going to be another version with
> > > some
> > > tweaked variable names?
> > 
> > Was there some agreement about variable name?
> 
> meta-qt5 5.6 is using this so we need a final decision if it will be
> merged or not. I am in favor it as I think it is clear enough.

It was an RFC and I still don't get a good feeling about the names
used.

I suggested:

PACKAGECONFIG_CONFPARAMS
or
PACKAGECONFIG_CONFARGS

as it then makes things slightly clearer these things are coming from
PACKAGECONFIG. We have a namespace which is a bit of a mess and I'd
prefer to try and improve with new things if we can...

The fact meta-qt5 is already using this is bad, it really shouldn't be.
We're also very close to the final build of 2.1 right now so this would
be a very late change :/.

Cheers,

Richard