Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 2/2] gstreamer1.0-plugins-good: add qt5 PACKAGECONFIG

["Denys Dmytriyenko" <denis@denix.org>]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 02:33:19PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 06:15:51PM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-03-24 at 14:12 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 06:07:44PM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2020-03-24 at 13:58 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:41:58AM +0800, Anuj Mittal wrote:
> > > > > > Instead of disabling unconditionally, add PACKAGECONFIG for
> > > > > > qt5. Imported from meta-qt5 layer.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Anuj Mittal <anuj.mittal@intel.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  .../gstreamer/gstreamer1.0-plugins-
> > > > > > good_1.16.2.bb                  | 7 +------
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/meta/recipes-multimedia/gstreamer/gstreamer1.0-
> > > > > > plugins-good_1.16.2.bb b/meta/recipes-
> > > > > > multimedia/gstreamer/gstreamer1.0-plugins-good_1.16.2.bb
> > > > > > index f3e0cee..8b34111 100644
> > > > > > --- a/meta/recipes-multimedia/gstreamer/gstreamer1.0-plugins-
> > > > > > good_1.16.2.bb
> > > > > > +++ b/meta/recipes-multimedia/gstreamer/gstreamer1.0-plugins-
> > > > > > good_1.16.2.bb
> > > > > > @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ PACKAGECONFIG[libpng]     = "-Dpng=enabled,-
> > > > > > Dpng=disabled,libpng"
> > > > > >  PACKAGECONFIG[libv4l2]    = "-Dv4l2-libv4l2=enabled,-Dv4l2-
> > > > > > libv4l2=disabled,v4l-utils"
> > > > > >  PACKAGECONFIG[mpg123]     = "-Dmpg123=enabled,-
> > > > > > Dmpg123=disabled,mpg123"
> > > > > >  PACKAGECONFIG[pulseaudio] = "-Dpulse=enabled,-
> > > > > > Dpulse=disabled,pulseaudio"
> > > > > > +PACKAGECONFIG[qt5]        = "-Dqt5=enabled,-
> > > > > > Dqt5=disabled,qtbase
> > > > > > qtdeclarative qtbase-native"
> > > > > 
> > > > > Does it make oe-core depend on meta-qt5 layer?
> > > > > 
> > > > > What is the policy here for having inter-layer dependencies in
> > > > > DEPENDS vs. PACKAGECONFIG without explicitly listing them in
> > > > > LAYERDEPENDS?
> > > > 
> > > > We have a clear policy that listing such options is ok as long as
> > > > its
> > > > not enabled by default.
> > > 
> > > Richard,
> > > 
> > > This is good, thank you for confirming. Do you have a link where this
> > > is clearly explained? Thanks again.
> > 
> > Its come up many times over the years and we've been consistent about
> > it. I don't have a link but there has been mailing list discussion and
> > perhaps TSC discussion long ago, I simply don't remember. There are
> > many examples of that in OE-Core.
> > 
> > The alternative is forcing more into bbappends which doesn't seem to
> > gain anything (PACKAGECONFIG itself could be changed from distro config
> > for example).
> > 
> > Its also easy to catch bad defaults since the recipes would no longer
> > parse due to missing dependencies which we'd quickly spot.
> 
> Richard,
> 
> Yes, yes, I understanf all that from a technical perspective and agree with 
> it, but I was thinking about a more clear definition of this policy to be able 
> to point anyone having such questions in the future...

BTW, I don't remember discussing this at YP TSC... Maybe OE TSC covered this 
in the past?

-- 
Denys