From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg0-f52.google.com (mail-pg0-f52.google.com [74.125.83.52]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42DC3779C6 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:47:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id t3so13115634pgt.0 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 00:47:26 -0700 (PDT) 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=8GdihU0XW4XEGdqqLiqBLGj2DSS7+61z47RhG5GYxis=; b=LjYFLvZdl0l43UsY6pZjB28QDoO0juaTIUvUur5Hv56ysbPymjTYEGUeHsJPGynH/1 XCexUfNMOBAQwZTnWPBSdGIQbOrfNUjY2nON89Fj+6ZNrbk6AGkSIWmaYnH9EP6iO1+e LQO5WQkn34Ht6rV/8rkVf+g9jDgWekgoJwd0vpXNy9fiPVQc1ZeZM9ExKm4L/VgkuNc4 OhglJYr+rGzdiDD2G2FzNF7xsXU/FnUB/ZaH0uwA6whFtulh20PU/AWaZ141CUZpgu2v Y1lS57eZheEv2bLC02j7xHD44AbYoV33fmT7NaCZeKRjkwhoPCfhijCcB/MSAi0Kyx43 ZtVQ== 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=8GdihU0XW4XEGdqqLiqBLGj2DSS7+61z47RhG5GYxis=; b=p//EWxK4igl3DrLs3sFAEkVAc/z9AmuT2nVME3xckn+CfBCTm22Cz2v1rTlolfhoJY t3gXkelB+85T6BfRSzKVqYeAKCAEdenlzjcIfRHWhDyTDjBPqDFtq1hYs2k3kfJn62kz g2HrShzyWUGlehB2lyXRLbiNu8hLh6cBmARKaud3toyfmvk257yZBJEJHyE3ViMhlomw bT6V0Xw5l1tec72h46eHC8TbyFEfMREhKm0g2E8w9vIxACeteu7L/QxZRd/3SAgz1dSL KGxFBODtH1VaGnw4n6LduommizCUceT6+r7g2LYFbZA4+NvmNGnQGRsHprAnaTKtMzPv FuWw== X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5hGmHOHskTyUiSLrDYust8jybDH+8f5qA6Ljs8zpvQunqnU8ofO I+mZJDMqvrs8Y9tG X-Received: by 10.84.217.201 with SMTP id d9mr5989696plj.335.1503560846118; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 00:47:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8F93A.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.249.58]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l79sm4422027pfk.66.2017.08.24.00.47.22 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 24 Aug 2017 00:47:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1503560838.3674.2.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Mark Hatle , Martin Jansa Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 09:47:18 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <04c5a375-93ee-7f32-4f91-a4dc3f7c9b1c@windriver.com> <20170810235637.GA3320@jama> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: [PATCH] autoconf-archive: move from meta-oe to OE-core 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: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:47:25 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 20:53 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: > On 8/10/17 6:56 PM, Martin Jansa wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 03:34:48PM -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: > > > On 8/10/17 3:18 PM, Martin Jansa wrote: > > > > -2 > > > > > > I agree that autoconf-archive should be in oe-core.  But... > > > > No argument about that, it was already merged to oe-core, I was > > only commenting about the gnome-common change included in this > > commit. The meta-oe patch is here: https://patchwork.openembedded.org/series/7995/# > Sorry, I missed the context.. ya if the gnome change is arch or board > specific that is wrong.  There should be no reason for that. The patch itself doesn't change anything around that, autoconf-archive already was arch specific. Martin is right, because of that the gnome-common->autoconf-archive dependency can't be done as in the patch above. But what is the right fix? Is autoconf-archive really arch specific or can "inherit allarch" be added to it? If not, can we add it to SIGGEN_EXCLUDERECIPES_ABISAFE to allow the gnome-common->autoconf-archive dependency? That would also prevent rebuilding software when updating autoconf-archive, which may or may not be the right thing to do - I'm undecided myself. -- 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.