Re: [PATCH 1/1] kernel.bbclass: make external module compile

[Anders Darander <anders@chargestorm.se>]

* Phil Blundell Phil Blundell <pb@pbcl.net> [07/05/11 02:44 PM]:
> On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 14:01 +0200, Anders Darander wrote:
> > diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
> > index 943252a..26ee416 100644
> > --- a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
> > +++ b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
> > @@ -149,7 +149,6 @@ kernel_do_install() {
> 
>         #
>         # We don't want to leave host-arch binaries in /sysroots, so
>         # we clean the scripts dir while leaving the generated config
> 
> >  	# and include files.
> >  	#
> >  	oe_runmake -C $kerneldir CC="${KERNEL_CC}" LD="${KERNEL_LD}" clean
> > 
> > -	make -C $kerneldir _mrproper_scripts
> > 
> >  	find $kerneldir -path $kerneldir/scripts -prune -o -name "*.[csS]"
> >  	-exec rm '{}' \; find $kerneldir/Documentation -name "*.txt" -exec rm
> >  	'{}' \;
> 
> Did you verify that this doesn't introduce any new QA warnings during
> packaging?  Presumably that line was originally added for a reason and
> it seems a bit surprising that just deleting it without any replacement
> is the right thing to do.

No, I didn't really verify that. Do I need to run with any specific options 
enabled, or should it be enough to just bitbake my modules recipe? (I can't 
test for the moment, as the latest pull from oe-core forces a rebuild of gcc 
etc).
 
> Also, if the scripts dir isn't being cleaned anymore, I guess the
> preceding comment should be adjusted to match the new reality.

That's true.

I'll wait to see if someone else has any comments, or if I find some QA 
warnings before I produce a version 2.

Regards,
Anders