From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TBhEt-0003FO-0h for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 09:19:59 +0200 Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Sep 2012 00:07:26 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,408,1344236400"; d="scan'208";a="221066173" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.13.93]) ([10.255.13.93]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Sep 2012 00:07:25 -0700 Message-ID: <505034AD.3010306@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 00:07:25 -0700 From: Saul Wold User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Phil Blundell References: <1347387265.29443.38.camel@x121e.pbcl.net> <504F80B0.8050406@linux.intel.com> <1347431813.29443.94.camel@x121e.pbcl.net> In-Reply-To: <1347431813.29443.94.camel@x121e.pbcl.net> Cc: oe-core Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] eglibc: Restore ${PN} to before ${PN}-dev in PACKAGES X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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, 12 Sep 2012 07:19:59 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 09/11/2012 11:36 PM, Phil Blundell wrote: > On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 11:19 -0700, Saul Wold wrote: >> On 09/11/2012 11:14 AM, Phil Blundell wrote: >>> Commit 13544fbc6217fee1731a6da1e2cf94901a500842 changed the ordering >>> of PACKAGES so that ${PN}-dev came before ${PN}. However, this caused >>> the FILES matching to go wrong if ${libdir} == ${base_libdir}. Fix this >>> by moving ${PN} ahead of ${PN}-dev once again. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Phil Blundell >>> --- >>> V2: now with high-tech PR goodness >> >> Did you do a build with BUILD_HISTORY enabled and verified nothing >> changes in the standard case? > > Yes, see attached. > Sorry, there is way too much in that diff, have you reviewed what actually changed? In the FILES and FILESLIST? Sau! > p. >