Re: [dora][regression] mesa failed to build

[Valentin Popa <valentin.popa@intel.com>]

On 04/12/2014 06:33 AM, Robert Yang wrote:
>
>
> On 04/11/2014 09:56 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Robert Yang 
>> <liezhi.yang@windriver.com> wrote:
>>> On 04/07/2014 10:55 PM, Valentin Popa wrote:
>>>> Indeed the build failure was introduced by that patch, which enters a
>>>> logical
>>>> conflict with the bbappend file for mesa.
>>>> To remain compatible with the future releases I suggest to not 
>>>> remove/add
>>>> flags
>>>> from/to EXTRA_OECONF explicitly, and make  use of what PACKAGECONFIG
>>>> contains.
>>>> The first part of the __anonymous function from the bbappend file 
>>>> can be
>>>> simply
>>>> replaced with:
>>>>
>>>> PACKAGECONFIG_remove = "egl"
>>>>
>>>> and the second part with:
>>>>
>>>> PROVIDES_remove = "virtual/libgles1 virtual/libgles2 virtual/egl"
>>>> and
>>>> PROVIDES_remove = "virtual/libgl" if mx6 is in SOC_FAMILY.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Otavio,
>>>
>>> Does Valentin's suggestions work for you, please?
>>
>> I am traveling and won't be able to test it.
>>
>> However I am quite surprise this didn't come out /before/ when the
>> dora updates were in test in AB since meta-fsl-arm is tested in AB
>> too. We need to figure /why/ this broke and for now I think we ought
>> to revert this dora patch.
>>
>> This kind of change needs to be coordinated and raise a build break in
>> an Yocto Project is unacceptable IMO.
>>
>> For me it is clear this didn't run in AB before merging. :(
>>
>
> I'm sorry about that, I had run it on my *local* AB before merging, but
> the local AB is less powerful and doesn't include the meta-fsl-arm layer,
> I'm fine to revert it, what's RP and valentin's opinion, please ?
>
> // Robert
>
>
>

I'll send a patch to handle this special case for meta-fsl-arm (mutate 
eglplatform.h only if it exists)