From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f178.google.com (mail-io0-f178.google.com [209.85.223.178]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00D246FF0E for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 12:56:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f178.google.com with SMTP id d9so453034684ioe.0 for ; Wed, 04 Jan 2017 04:56:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4ZfWARayFArSLehdZtfU8Lib9vUPyE1WfiCb3cGeeCc=; b=0i0TAgREyjDh+jmWwoyJAcF3Aef0/v8+Xfl8+A7pKvExgbHNAGW4amj+pcuL5KgOmw dOD2stlrFOUshT9HrYLJvueLSV1mnlEsHAe7SL1+GRpaMsXEBglHkjSqoSAgS/oXygKV qqs3kUhX3bZjBLl0ZwRjQV9NLzGhj35cSg7hD3WTveYcvKC4Z/IlTTaegG9GdNNtG65V YUezt7brMEYkkhKIm7EL3upBFLTt0UulDqQT02/m9yKdx4YKG7isFtwiBgrs0AN+VUiP gtZmisaUgAIFuHoXs3TZ3cHnlTePX+0qzCJCTOsJHvHlOX8SzWJGL9rV8g6to9QTOEG9 ELtw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4ZfWARayFArSLehdZtfU8Lib9vUPyE1WfiCb3cGeeCc=; b=gH+SW1u3peMy8jNYPCO8wmG4ehX+lC3X4mT5sE9KPyIpQM/KcLzyF+KmC/mkkUB89D LPwgJcFmeuHnJ/4joAzsJkpc0lUyQGdBjUVz8697Cpc2R9Ald27dBj9BV1gx+bHyTqd1 9khD2GiGE1MAKUOJtX2QM/vJ4B9bsURnU2LW0M+5tWBdwZfQ7j/uMV3zzfGFzh/OmVfJ vPFmF3dybvgjBq/XsPkCWTBbTwI3LATbZ5R0OPzvQbMbCaB+UmtRCUFwMjpelqoR7IcI 85WVI/0HwDp4hzdYlmOHhiSrYQLzjENwKbRT4amdlIBhmLZdBX6gBGxI08S2U1dE1e8L Y+Rw== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLLccZAKjWPPSvZr88+pQlv8aFV5jgzplfqQVBsIghgRWt1Jt8OF6/NPnEJ+YFhft4I X-Received: by 10.107.6.223 with SMTP id f92mr50232456ioi.2.1483534593157; Wed, 04 Jan 2017 04:56:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p57A56308.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [87.165.99.8]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y125sm33971564ity.13.2017.01.04.04.56.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Jan 2017 04:56:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1483534589.28169.48.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: "Neri, Ricardo" Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 13:56:29 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1482893989.106950.45.camel@ranerica-desktop> References: <1482893989.106950.45.camel@ranerica-desktop> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: "openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] ovmf: explicitly depend on nasm-native 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, 04 Jan 2017 12:56:33 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2016-12-28 at 02:59 +0000, Neri, Ricardo wrote: > On Wed, 2016-12-21 at 14:11 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > +DEPENDS_append = " nasm-native" > > + > Is this dependency needed for both native and target builds? If not, it > can be done with DEPENDS_class... I'm not sure anymore. As it doesn't matter in practice because ovmf depends on ovmf-native and thys nasm-native is built either way, I'd prefer to keep it as-is. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.