Re: [PATCH 06/13] gtk+: import native support from meta-oe

[Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3908 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 09:52:02AM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 07:51 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:02:44AM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 00:50 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:11:16PM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 22:36 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <Martin.Jansa@gmail.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  meta/recipes-gnome/gtk+/gtk+.inc |    4 ++++
> > > > > >  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > I really don't like the message having a gtk+-native around sends out.
> > > > > Why do we need this?
> > > > 
> > > > See cover letter if you haven't already.
> > > 
> > > Sorry, I'd looked at it but I'd missed the key bit. I think I thought
> > > the URL was a pull URL and my eyes skimmed it.
> > 
> > No problem,
> > 
> > > To be honest I don't think the update-icon-cache is good enough reason
> > > to build a full gtk+-native. If we let these pieces in the dependencies
> > > have a tendency to grow and people have no incentive to try and fix
> > > these issues.
> > 
> > Well agreed, but most of those natives are needed for librsvg-native
> > which in turn is used in navit build to generate icons (which I can
> > hardly replace with something thiner then librsvg and using e.g.
> > autodetected ksvgtopng from host is even worse for reproducible builds).
> 
> librsvg-native I don't mind as much, I'm ok with taking those patches.
> 
> > So for minimal gtk+-native I only need libx11-native and
> > libxrander-native, but the problem is that PACKAGECONFIG without that
> > fix ignores all -native depends and with fix it correctly adds -native
> > to all non-native deps added by PACKAGECONFIG
> > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2012-March/019348.html
> 
> Right, I'm aware of that issue and sorry for not responding yet.
> Basically, I wanted to do some proper patch review and write a
> reasonable response to it and I've been lacking the time to do so.
> 
> Firstly, I agree we need to fix it there is no question of that. The
> patch moving everything to base.bbclass concerns me though, not least as
> it undoes a lot of the work I've been trying to do with regard to
> abstracting the bbclassextend code into lib/oe/*.py. I therefore think
> an alternative approach is going to be needed but I've not managed to
> come up with that yet :(.

Ah I haven't noticed lib/oe/classextend.py, well because it's not used in
native/nativesdk handler only in multilib.

> > > I'd like to better understand why there is no other way to avoid this.
> > 
> > I can look into gtk+3 build what else we need to provide to be able to
> > build without --enable-gtk2-dependency or how to disable
> > update-icon-cache during build so that people with gtk+ installed on
> > host and without get the same result package, but I'm not really
> > interested in gtk+3 so I was just fixing another build failure :/ so it 
> > can take some time...
> 
> This is one case I think we need to do the right thing and not take
> short cuts. I don't mind the extends for librsvg-native but I don't want
> to take gtk+-native or pango-native and any of the the dependencies only
> they need.
> 
> I also agree we need to fix PACKAGECONFIG but I don't like the direction
> the patch takes and haven't had time to come up with an alternative. I
> wish I had more time and was able to give a better reply.

OK I'll keep this locally to keep gtk+-native building (it's nicer than
http://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded-contrib/commit/?h=shr&id=91890091cabbfe40705838ac787be898bae37805
work around) till you come up with better alternative.

Cheers,

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]