From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SWpQE-0000XX-La for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 22 May 2012 15:46:46 +0200 Received: from azsmga001.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.19]) by azsmga102.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 May 2012 06:36:36 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="scan'208";a="146251240" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.120.151]) by azsmga001.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 May 2012 06:36:35 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: Andreas Oberritter Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 14:36:34 +0100 Message-ID: <1823492.ykGXyerc6j@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.8.2 (Linux/3.2.0-24-generic-pae; KDE/4.8.2; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <4FBB9471.6040905@opendreambox.org> References: <1337686647-1027-1-git-send-email-obi@opendreambox.org> <2080721.YZu0iU2L4T@helios> <4FBB9471.6040905@opendreambox.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] qt4(-embedded).inc: create variables to ease overriding X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 13:46:47 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Tuesday 22 May 2012 15:28:17 you wrote: > On 22.05.2012 14:51, Paul Eggleton wrote: > > I think when we start getting to this level, especially because some of > > these options imply extra DEPENDS, we should try to use PACKAGECONFIG > > rather than specific variables. > > Introducing PACKAGECONFIG is a more complex change. It can still be done > in a later patch. It could be, but then we're introducing variables that will potentially go into people's distro configs only to take them away in the near future. I'm not especially keen on doing that. > This patch just follows the semantics introduced by > QT_SQL_DRIVER_FLAGS Right, and when that was introduced some time ago we did not have PACKAGECONFIG at all. I realise this puts extra burden upon you, sorry about that. I can perhaps offer to do the PACKAGECONFIG changes for you, but I won't be able to get to them until next week at the earliest. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre