From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (mail-wm0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B817476803 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 13:22:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id l68so79970550wml.0 for ; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 05:22:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=qRbhZbJAk5Ezet6iwl7CKXwodQyesAZbSnxNy7lXx5w=; b=rFrIws+HBw3WyYe3qA5hr1Rd4l/H6xfTNn4Z5yUYMt/0FoSDj+shemMbLvTFm96sze W/7SfmGxI9eprWbvp2yEaeLOyp2NEcBAuwWQ7qxyu6ZeddYp5JiNivjycgZ5UzTpKrcC a/+WdT1qNVTe4F+VVrzUNyT/DG2Uc3NYSpdGhgxw9pWocngPGHQrlMqN4mpgYElSHubZ nWaYcOXaWFcYhvYXHLzWjFvlsuC1z6VWPi1qH0BLffRv1TAACJxCWMzsCLLgpbBjM+V1 mQp2UD3fE+KVf1kfhoZPaNLakiQYdnlVkG/Bie1oaupKP/UNGRycz3IiRgthPY4DFTzC X9rg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=qRbhZbJAk5Ezet6iwl7CKXwodQyesAZbSnxNy7lXx5w=; b=AUk2Ndfw5K8vmDjrwT/v+NJ2o7SEkTHrp/ST0awbItXrU0L2yGyOu5kscfvzrk3nhD 8zgGiOMdpDoufXc630P6HcIMbqLwqxM8Cm+X5VherCA4hA6IaBsPJCaGZFj2sJSUVOEI NVrxFFS3Jxc4vaNU1WXQ7kGqfWaynZA4mTVJnqoh/EAuzqcx+D7nNjJPbd/q+7LtgUuN A85EL+BY90FFiUKCu9AKGNt+STgMdj0VAoWk+Q3Cbmac/XU1WVkZDE5Yl9K3GWpGXQmW cmh3yH+/6J0hXV9ysT3q154HYQBb4rh7gWesgi1nZ6GmqkfJZhK5VHXhwFqF5XNcPMMr jQKg== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJ6TARfUUCguSgLaP7RUZWLu/oPZ4KAfr2MfBLsVlb5ZXmDOuoyuG6w3bk6VMGW6w== X-Received: by 10.28.224.195 with SMTP id x186mr3474270wmg.21.1456924971667; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 05:22:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (ip-86-49-34-37.net.upcbroadband.cz. [86.49.34.37]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x65sm4201398wmg.4.2016.03.02.05.22.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 02 Mar 2016 05:22:50 -0800 (PST) From: Martin Jansa X-Google-Original-From: Martin Jansa Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 14:24:49 +0100 To: Richard Purdie Message-ID: <20160302132449.GC10529@jama> References: <1456610987-17836-1-git-send-email-Martin.Jansa@gmail.com> <20160302123800.GB10529@jama> <1456924305.25131.30.camel@linuxfoundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1456924305.25131.30.camel@linuxfoundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] base.bbclass: Introduce EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG variable 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, 02 Mar 2016 13:22:52 -0000 X-Groupsio-MsgNum: 79029 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="HG+GLK89HZ1zG0kk" Content-Disposition: inline --HG+GLK89HZ1zG0kk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 01:11:45PM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 13:38 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 11:09:47PM +0100, Martin Jansa wrote: > > > * add separate variable for configuration options generated from > > > PACKAGECONFIG setting, this helps other bbclasses and recipes > > > to take advantage of PACKAGECONFIG mechanism, without including > > > other options from EXTRA_OECONF > > > * e.g. meta-qt5 recipes are abusing EXTRA_OECONF to get options > > > from PACKAGECONFIG: > > > EXTRA_QMAKEVARS_PRE +=3D > > > but with > > > conf/distro/include/no-static-libs.inc > > > it means getting --disable-static as invalid option inside > > > EXTRA_QMAKEVARS_PRE as reported by Alexandre Belloni who tried > > > to use poky with meta-qt5. > > > * once we migrate all bbclasses and recipes to > > > EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG > > > we should also restrict EXTRA_OECONF append only to > > > autotools.bbclass > > > like I did for cmake.bbclass > >=20 > > No comments? Should I resend without [RFC] tag? > >=20 > > This is needed to fix couple components when > > conf/distro/include/no-static-libs.inc is used. >=20 > I can see the need for it, I'm just not 100% sure I like the form of > the patch. No one particular thing is doing that, just a general > feeling of unease which I can't quite put into words :(. >=20 > We continue to have a need to differentiate between "proper" autotools > recipes and non-autotools recipes which would make this kind of issue > easier. I guess I'm trying to weigh up whether we should consider > something a bit more invasive to try and improve things and if we do > that whether this patch helps or hinders that (it probably does help). I've considered the invasive part of moving EXTRA_OECONF append to autotools.bbclass (like I did for cmake.bbclass) but after grepping for EXTRA_OECONF I've decided to leave it for separate step (e.g. waf-samba.bbclass and meta-oe/recipes-benchmark/fio/fio_2.2.6.bb are abusing EXTRA_OECONF and would break if we remove this). EXTRA_OECMAKE wasn't afaik abused anywhere and fix for qt5 was relatively simple: http://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/116981/ so I went with compromise to fix what's really failing now and leave future cleanup/improvement for later when more recipes adapt EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG variable. > I'm also not 100% convinced EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG is the right name, > but I can see how you got here and I'm not sure I have a better > suggestion (PACKAGECONFIG_CONFPARAMS? _CONFARGS?) I was expecting this discussion, I have no strong opinion either way. Namespacing with with PACKAGECONFIG_ prefix is good idea though. --=20 Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com --HG+GLK89HZ1zG0kk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlbW6aEACgkQN1Ujt2V2gBx3egCcDQWGe5sFaof8uUIiVQUe+0EJ 4tMAnAs2/CSAbdKR8Snog29e1HKIv5HI =9Jws -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --HG+GLK89HZ1zG0kk--