Re: [PATCH][RFC] base.bbclass: Introduce EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG variable

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1646 bytes --]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 11:28:59AM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-03-25 at 11:50 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 12:40:31PM +0000, Burton, Ross wrote:
> > > On 27 February 2016 at 22:09, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>
> > > 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 +=
> > > >   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
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Sorry, some of us have been a bit busy trying to get M3 stable. 
> > >  This does
> > > look good and I'm for squeezing it into M3.
> > 
> > Any update on squeezing this?
> > 
> > meta-qt5 is still broken with default poky config
> 
> I'm a little confused, was there going to be another version with some
> tweaked variable names?

Was there some agreement about variable name?

:)

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

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]