[PATCH 0/4] Remove dependency on X11 when building for qemu machines

[PATCH 0/4] Remove dependency on X11 when building for qemu machines

[Paul Eggleton]

Make some adjustments to qemu-config and items it depends upon to avoid
having a hard depencency on building X11. Note that there is still a
dependency chain that builds X11 for core-image-minimal by default
(udev->glib-2.0->dbus...) however, at least you can now remove x11 from
DISTRO_FEATURES and still be able to build an image for a qemu* machine.

As a side bonus because of the oprofileui-server split qemu-config should
not need to be blacklisted for non-GPLv3 builds anymore.


The following changes since commit f2316ff39670ed99382411e15ac035550360fbdd:

  opkg: Ensure we use the uname/gname fields when extracting tarballs (2011-11-14 11:15:36 +0000)

are available in the git repository at:
  git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core-contrib paule/qemu-x11
  http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded-core-contrib/log/?h=paule/qemu-x11

Paul Eggleton (4):
  oprofileui: split server to separate recipe to avoid X11 dependency
  qemu-config: split out anjuta-remote-run
  distcc: make distccmon-gnome optional and default to off
  qemu-config: update DESCRIPTION and LICENSE

 meta/recipes-bsp/qemu-config/qemu-config.bb        |   12 +-
 .../anjuta-remote-run/anjuta-remote-run.bb         |   21 ++
 .../anjuta-remote-run/COPYING.GPL                  |  339 ++++++++++++++++++++
 .../anjuta-remote-run}/anjuta-remote-run           |    0
 meta/recipes-devtools/distcc/distcc_2.18.3.bb      |   18 +-
 .../oprofile/oprofileui-server_git.bb              |   13 +
 meta/recipes-kernel/oprofile/oprofileui.inc        |   11 +-
 meta/recipes-kernel/oprofile/oprofileui_git.bb     |   12 +-
 8 files changed, 398 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/anjuta-remote-run/anjuta-remote-run.bb
 create mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/anjuta-remote-run/anjuta-remote-run/COPYING.GPL
 rename meta/{recipes-bsp/qemu-config/qemu-config => recipes-devtools/anjuta-remote-run/anjuta-remote-run}/anjuta-remote-run (100%)
 create mode 100644 meta/recipes-kernel/oprofile/oprofileui-server_git.bb

-- 
1.7.5.4

[PATCH 1/4] oprofileui: split server to separate recipe to avoid X11 dependency

[Paul Eggleton]

Increase SRCREV to include an upstream patch that fixes the configure
script so that the server can be built separately without gtk+ and
avahi-ui, and create a separate recipe for the server.

Part of the fix for [YOCTO #1690].

Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
---
 .../oprofile/oprofileui-server_git.bb              |   13 +++++++++++++
 meta/recipes-kernel/oprofile/oprofileui.inc        |   11 ++---------
 meta/recipes-kernel/oprofile/oprofileui_git.bb     |   12 ++++++++++--
 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 meta/recipes-kernel/oprofile/oprofileui-server_git.bb

diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/oprofile/oprofileui-server_git.bb b/meta/recipes-kernel/oprofile/oprofileui-server_git.bb
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b9f6a81
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/oprofile/oprofileui-server_git.bb
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+require oprofileui.inc
+
+SRCREV = "82ecf8c6b53b84f80682a8312f9defa83a95f2a3"
+PV = "0.0+git${SRCPV}"
+PR = "r0"
+
+S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
+
+SRC_URI = "git://git.yoctoproject.org/oprofileui;protocol=git"
+
+EXTRA_OECONF += "--disable-client --enable-server"
+
+RDEPENDS_${PN} = "oprofile"
diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/oprofile/oprofileui.inc b/meta/recipes-kernel/oprofile/oprofileui.inc
index ab14c38..9a9bc19 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-kernel/oprofile/oprofileui.inc
+++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/oprofile/oprofileui.inc
@@ -8,16 +8,9 @@ SECTION = "x11"
 LICENSE = "GPLv2"
 LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=94d55d512a9ba36caa9b7df079bae19f"
 
-DEPENDS = "glib-2.0 gtk+ libglade libxml2 avahi-ui gconf"
+DEPENDS = "glib-2.0 avahi"
 
-inherit autotools pkgconfig gtk-icon-cache
-
-PACKAGES =+ "oprofileui-server oprofileui-viewer"
+inherit autotools pkgconfig
 
 EXTRA_OECONF = "--with-avahi"
 
-FILES_oprofileui-viewer = "${bindir}/oparchconv ${bindir}/oprofile-viewer ${datadir}/applications/ ${datadir}/oprofileui/"
-RDEPENDS_oprofile-viewer = "oprofile"
-
-FILES_oprofileui-server = "${bindir}/oprofile-server"
-RDEPENDS_oprofile-server = "oprofile"
diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/oprofile/oprofileui_git.bb b/meta/recipes-kernel/oprofile/oprofileui_git.bb
index 2b56981..4eeace4 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-kernel/oprofile/oprofileui_git.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/oprofile/oprofileui_git.bb
@@ -1,10 +1,18 @@
 require oprofileui.inc
 
-SRCREV = "b3116a4f80ae64bd280e6434d66f33ed492d449a"
+DEPENDS += "gtk+ libglade libxml2 gconf avahi-ui"
+
+SRCREV = "82ecf8c6b53b84f80682a8312f9defa83a95f2a3"
 PV = "0.0+git${SRCPV}"
 PR = "r0"
 
 S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
 
-# Oprofileui at http://labs.o-hand.com/oprofileui/ is not maintained now.
 SRC_URI = "git://git.yoctoproject.org/oprofileui;protocol=git"
+
+EXTRA_OECONF += "--enable-client --disable-server"
+
+PACKAGES =+ "oprofileui-viewer"
+
+FILES_oprofileui-viewer = "${bindir}/oparchconv ${bindir}/oprofile-viewer ${datadir}/applications/ ${datadir}/oprofileui/"
+RDEPENDS_oprofile-viewer = "oprofile"
-- 
1.7.5.4

[PATCH 2/4] qemu-config: split out anjuta-remote-run

[Paul Eggleton]

anjuta-remote-run requires dbus-x11 which results in X11 being built for
any image built for a qemu machine, which is somewhat excessive. Given
that support for Anjuta is also unlikely to be needed by everyone and is
by no means specific to qemu, split it out to a separate recipe.

Part of the fix for [YOCTO #1690].

Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
---
 meta/recipes-bsp/qemu-config/qemu-config.bb        |    8 +-
 .../anjuta-remote-run/anjuta-remote-run.bb         |   21 ++
 .../anjuta-remote-run/COPYING.GPL                  |  339 ++++++++++++++++++++
 .../anjuta-remote-run}/anjuta-remote-run           |    0
 4 files changed, 362 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/anjuta-remote-run/anjuta-remote-run.bb
 create mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/anjuta-remote-run/anjuta-remote-run/COPYING.GPL
 rename meta/{recipes-bsp/qemu-config/qemu-config => recipes-devtools/anjuta-remote-run/anjuta-remote-run}/anjuta-remote-run (100%)

diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/qemu-config/qemu-config.bb b/meta/recipes-bsp/qemu-config/qemu-config.bb
index ebf957a..4baf175 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-bsp/qemu-config/qemu-config.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/qemu-config/qemu-config.bb
@@ -5,10 +5,9 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://${WORKDIR}/COPYING.GPL;md5=751419260aa954499f7abaabaa
 
 COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(qemuarm|qemux86|qemumips|qemuppc)"
 
-PR = "r22"
+PR = "r23"
 
 SRC_URI = "file://distcc.sh \
-           file://anjuta-remote-run \
            file://exports \
            file://shutdown.desktop \
            file://qemu-autostart \
@@ -22,9 +21,6 @@ do_install() {
     install -m 0755 distcc.sh ${D}${sysconfdir}/profile.d/
     install -m 0644 exports ${D}${sysconfdir}/
     
-    install -d ${D}${bindir}
-    install -m 0755 anjuta-remote-run ${D}${bindir}/
-    
     install -d ${D}${datadir}/applications
     install -m 0644 shutdown.desktop ${D}${datadir}/applications/
 
@@ -37,7 +33,7 @@ pkg_postinst_${PN} () {
         sed -i $D${datadir}/applications/shutdown.desktop -e 's/^Exec=halt/Exec=reboot/'
 }
 
-RDEPENDS_${PN} = "distcc dbus-x11 task-core-nfs-server oprofileui-server rsync bash"
+RDEPENDS_${PN} = "distcc task-core-nfs-server oprofileui-server rsync bash"
 
 inherit update-rc.d allarch
 
diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/anjuta-remote-run/anjuta-remote-run.bb b/meta/recipes-devtools/anjuta-remote-run/anjuta-remote-run.bb
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..18bdec6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/anjuta-remote-run/anjuta-remote-run.bb
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+DESCRIPTION = "Provides on-device script for interaction with the Anjuta IDE"
+LICENSE = "GPLv2"
+LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://${WORKDIR}/COPYING.GPL;md5=751419260aa954499f7abaabaa882bbe"
+
+PR = "r0"
+
+SRC_URI = "file://anjuta-remote-run \
+           file://COPYING.GPL"
+
+S = "${WORKDIR}"
+
+do_install() {
+    install -d ${D}${bindir}
+    install -m 0755 anjuta-remote-run ${D}${bindir}/
+}
+
+PACKAGES = "${PN}"
+RDEPENDS_${PN} = "dbus-x11"
+
+inherit allarch
+
diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/anjuta-remote-run/anjuta-remote-run/COPYING.GPL b/meta/recipes-devtools/anjuta-remote-run/anjuta-remote-run/COPYING.GPL
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d511905
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/anjuta-remote-run/anjuta-remote-run/COPYING.GPL
@@ -0,0 +1,339 @@
+		    GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
+		       Version 2, June 1991
+
+ Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
+ 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
+ Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
+ of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
+
+			    Preamble
+
+  The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
+freedom to share and change it.  By contrast, the GNU General Public
+License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
+software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.  This
+General Public License applies to most of the Free Software
+Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to
+using it.  (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by
+the GNU Lesser General Public License instead.)  You can apply it to
+your programs, too.
+
+  When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
+price.  Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
+have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
+this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
+if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
+in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
+
+  To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
+anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
+These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
+distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
+
+  For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
+gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
+you have.  You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
+source code.  And you must show them these terms so they know their
+rights.
+
+  We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
+(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
+distribute and/or modify the software.
+
+  Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
+that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
+software.  If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
+want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
+that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
+authors' reputations.
+
+  Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software
+patents.  We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
+program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
+program proprietary.  To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
+patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
+
+  The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
+modification follow.
+
+		    GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
+   TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
+
+  0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
+a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
+under the terms of this General Public License.  The "Program", below,
+refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
+means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
+that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
+either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
+language.  (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
+the term "modification".)  Each licensee is addressed as "you".
+
+Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
+covered by this License; they are outside its scope.  The act of
+running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
+is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
+Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
+Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
+
+  1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
+source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
+conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
+copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
+notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
+and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
+along with the Program.
+
+You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
+you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
+
+  2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
+of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
+distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
+above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
+
+    a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
+    stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
+
+    b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
+    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
+    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
+    parties under the terms of this License.
+
+    c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
+    when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
+    interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
+    announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
+    notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
+    a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
+    these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
+    License.  (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
+    does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
+    the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
+
+These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
+identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
+and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
+themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
+sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
+distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
+on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
+this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
+entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
+
+Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
+your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
+exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
+collective works based on the Program.
+
+In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
+with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
+a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
+the scope of this License.
+
+  3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
+under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
+Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
+
+    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
+    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
+    1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
+
+    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
+    years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
+    cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
+    machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
+    distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
+    customarily used for software interchange; or,
+
+    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
+    to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
+    allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
+    received the program in object code or executable form with such
+    an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
+
+The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
+making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete source
+code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
+associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
+control compilation and installation of the executable.  However, as a
+special exception, the source code distributed need not include
+anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
+form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
+operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
+itself accompanies the executable.
+
+If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
+access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
+access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
+distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
+compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
+
+  4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
+except as expressly provided under this License.  Any attempt
+otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
+void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
+However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
+this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
+parties remain in full compliance.
+
+  5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
+signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
+distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These actions are
+prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.  Therefore, by
+modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
+Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
+all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
+the Program or works based on it.
+
+  6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
+Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
+original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
+these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
+restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
+You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
+this License.
+
+  7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
+infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
+conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
+otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
+excuse you from the conditions of this License.  If you cannot
+distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
+License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
+may not distribute the Program at all.  For example, if a patent
+license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
+all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
+the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
+refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
+
+If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
+any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
+apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
+circumstances.
+
+It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
+patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
+such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
+integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
+implemented by public license practices.  Many people have made
+generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
+through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
+system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
+to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
+impose that choice.
+
+This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
+be a consequence of the rest of this License.
+
+  8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
+certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
+original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
+may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
+those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
+countries not thus excluded.  In such case, this License incorporates
+the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
+
+  9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
+of the General Public License from time to time.  Such new versions will
+be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
+address new problems or concerns.
+
+Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the Program
+specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
+later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
+either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
+Software Foundation.  If the Program does not specify a version number of
+this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
+Foundation.
+
+  10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
+programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
+to ask for permission.  For software which is copyrighted by the Free
+Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes
+make exceptions for this.  Our decision will be guided by the two goals
+of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and
+of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
+
+			    NO WARRANTY
+
+  11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
+FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.  EXCEPT WHEN
+OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
+PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
+OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  THE ENTIRE RISK AS
+TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU.  SHOULD THE
+PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
+REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
+
+  12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
+WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
+REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES,
+INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING
+OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
+TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY
+YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER
+PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
+POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
+
+		     END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
+
+	    How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs
+
+  If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
+possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
+free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.
+
+  To do so, attach the following notices to the program.  It is safest
+to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
+convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
+the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
+
+    <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
+    Copyright (C) <year>  <name of author>
+
+    This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+    it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+    the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
+    (at your option) any later version.
+
+    This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+    but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+    MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
+    GNU General Public License for more details.
+
+    You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along
+    with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
+    51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA.
+
+Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
+
+If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
+when it starts in an interactive mode:
+
+    Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) year name of author
+    Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
+    This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
+    under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
+
+The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
+parts of the General Public License.  Of course, the commands you use may
+be called something other than `show w' and `show c'; they could even be
+mouse-clicks or menu items--whatever suits your program.
+
+You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
+school, if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if
+necessary.  Here is a sample; alter the names:
+
+  Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program
+  `Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker.
+
+  <signature of Ty Coon>, 1 April 1989
+  Ty Coon, President of Vice
+
+This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
+proprietary programs.  If your program is a subroutine library, you may
+consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
+library.  If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General
+Public License instead of this License.
diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/qemu-config/qemu-config/anjuta-remote-run b/meta/recipes-devtools/anjuta-remote-run/anjuta-remote-run/anjuta-remote-run
similarity index 100%
rename from meta/recipes-bsp/qemu-config/qemu-config/anjuta-remote-run
rename to meta/recipes-devtools/anjuta-remote-run/anjuta-remote-run/anjuta-remote-run
-- 
1.7.5.4

[PATCH 3/4] distcc: make distccmon-gnome optional and default to off

[Paul Eggleton]

Most people building distcc will not need the distccmon-gnome GUI to be
built, so make it optional via the new PACKAGECONFIG functionality and
default it to disabled. (This also removes the need to disable it for
uclibc.)

Part of the fix for [YOCTO #1690].

Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
---
 meta/recipes-devtools/distcc/distcc_2.18.3.bb |   18 +++++++++---------
 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/distcc/distcc_2.18.3.bb b/meta/recipes-devtools/distcc/distcc_2.18.3.bb
index ec6ffb3..e15af5e 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-devtools/distcc/distcc_2.18.3.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/distcc/distcc_2.18.3.bb
@@ -4,11 +4,12 @@ compilation of C/C++/ObjC code across machines on a network."
 SECTION = "devel"
 LICENSE = "GPLv2"
 LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=94d55d512a9ba36caa9b7df079bae19f"
-PR = "r7"
+PR = "r8"
 
-DEPENDS = "avahi ${GTKDEP}"
-GTKDEP_libc-uclibc = ""
-GTKDEP = "gtk+"
+DEPENDS = "avahi"
+
+PACKAGECONFIG ??= ""
+PACKAGECONFIG[gui] = "--with-gtk,--without-gtk --without-gnome,gtk+"
 
 RRECOMMENDS_${PN} = "avahi-daemon"
 
@@ -28,20 +29,19 @@ inherit autotools pkgconfig update-rc.d
 
 INITSCRIPT_NAME = "distcc"
 
-EXTRA_OECONF = "--with-gtk"
-EXTRA_OECONF_libc-uclibc = "--without-gtk --without-gnome"
 do_install_append() {
     install -d ${D}${sysconfdir}/init.d/
     install -d ${D}${sysconfdir}/default
     install -m 0755 ${WORKDIR}/distcc ${D}${sysconfdir}/init.d/
     install -m 0755 ${WORKDIR}/default ${D}${sysconfdir}/default/distcc
-    ${DESKTOPINSTALL}
+    ${@base_contains("PACKAGECONFIG", "gui", "desktop_install", "", d)}
 }
-DESKTOPINSTALL = ""
-DESKTOPINSTALL_libc-glibc () {
+
+desktop_install() {
     install -d ${D}${datadir}/distcc/
     install -m 0644 ${WORKDIR}/distccmon-gnome.desktop ${D}${datadir}/distcc/
 }
+
 PACKAGES += "distcc-distmon-gnome"
 
 FILES_${PN} = " ${sysconfdir} \
-- 
1.7.5.4

Re: [PATCH 3/4] distcc: make distccmon-gnome optional and default to off

[Koen Kooi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 450 bytes --]


Op 14 nov. 2011, om 19:54 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:

> Most people building distcc will not need the distccmon-gnome GUI to be
> built, so make it optional via the new PACKAGECONFIG functionality and
> default it to disabled. (This also removes the need to disable it for
> uclibc.)
> 
> Part of the fix for [YOCTO #1690].

I think splitting distccmon-gnome into a seperate recipe is a better idea.

regards,

Koen

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 169 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 3/4] distcc: make distccmon-gnome optional and default to off

[Richard Purdie]

On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 20:17 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 14 nov. 2011, om 19:54 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > Most people building distcc will not need the distccmon-gnome GUI to be
> > built, so make it optional via the new PACKAGECONFIG functionality and
> > default it to disabled. (This also removes the need to disable it for
> > uclibc.)
> > 
> > Part of the fix for [YOCTO #1690].
> 
> I think splitting distccmon-gnome into a seperate recipe is a better idea.

I think that makes sense in some cases but I'd hate for it to become the
default approach for issues like this as the duplication of code,
parsing and build time etc. grate on me. Do we really need separate
recipes?

I'll probably take this patch as it improves the situation IMO (and is
easy to change the configuration from a distro config if anyone does
have an issue with it being disabled).

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [PATCH 3/4] distcc: make distccmon-gnome optional and default to off

[Koen Kooi]

Op 14 nov. 2011, om 21:39 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:

> On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 20:17 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Op 14 nov. 2011, om 19:54 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> Most people building distcc will not need the distccmon-gnome GUI to be
>>> built, so make it optional via the new PACKAGECONFIG functionality and
>>> default it to disabled. (This also removes the need to disable it for
>>> uclibc.)
>>> 
>>> Part of the fix for [YOCTO #1690].
>> 
>> I think splitting distccmon-gnome into a seperate recipe is a better idea.
> 
> I think that makes sense in some cases but I'd hate for it to become the
> default approach for issues like this as the duplication of code,
> parsing and build time etc. grate on me. Do we really need separate
> recipes?

I think for this case, yes. And I'll happily trade needing extra buildtime for not needing USEFLAGS.

> 
> I'll probably take this patch as it improves the situation IMO (and is
> easy to change the configuration from a distro config if anyone does
> have an issue with it being disabled).

This patch changes the default behaviour in a way that distros need to update their configs in order to keep the status quo. I know I use distccmon-gnome on my boards, but will I remember 2 months from now that this patch went in? I asked this before in a different context, but I'll ask again: do you expect distro maintainers to vet each and every commit that goes into OE-core to find out when default got (silently) changed?

USEFLAGS should be a last resort when having seperate recipes doesn't work out, not a default cure. 

regards,

Koen

Re: [PATCH 3/4] distcc: make distccmon-gnome optional and default to off

[Richard Purdie]

On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 21:55 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 14 nov. 2011, om 21:39 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
> > On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 20:17 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> I think splitting distccmon-gnome into a seperate recipe is a better idea.
> > 
> > I think that makes sense in some cases but I'd hate for it to become the
> > default approach for issues like this as the duplication of code,
> > parsing and build time etc. grate on me. Do we really need separate
> > recipes?
> 
> I think for this case, yes. And I'll happily trade needing extra
> buildtime for not needing USEFLAGS.
> 
The proposals for alternative recipes for the different combinations got
voted down and PACKAGECONFIG was the preferred solution. I can't say I
personally like everything about the outcome. I do however understand
why we've ended up in that position and don't intend to undermine the
usefulness of it.

> > I'll probably take this patch as it improves the situation IMO (and
> is
> > easy to change the configuration from a distro config if anyone does
> > have an issue with it being disabled).
> 
> This patch changes the default behaviour in a way that distros need to
> update their configs in order to keep the status quo. I know I use
> distccmon-gnome on my boards, but will I remember 2 months from now
> that this patch went in? I asked this before in a different context,
> but I'll ask again: do you expect distro maintainers to vet each and
> every commit that goes into OE-core to find out when default got
> (silently) changed?
> 
> USEFLAGS should be a last resort when having seperate recipes doesn't
> work out, not a default cure. 

The discussion and decision went against this, rightly or wrongly
PACKAGECONFIG is here and we should start to use it. In some cases it
will help you a lot, in others it will cause you a bit more work. Such
is life.

However I do agree the defaults should be backwards compatible so I'm
going to ask Paul to resubmit with a default value that matches the
original recipe, probably something like:

PACKAGECONFIG ??= "${@base_contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'directfb', 'directfb', '', d)} \
                   ${@base_contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'x11', 'x11', '', d)}

although we could/should probably have some kind of "HAVEGTK" macro type
variable defined to help avoid some of this ugliness.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [PATCH 3/4] distcc: make distccmon-gnome optional and default to off

[Koen Kooi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2308 bytes --]


Op 14 nov. 2011, om 22:48 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:

> On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 21:55 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Op 14 nov. 2011, om 21:39 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
>>> On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 20:17 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>> I think splitting distccmon-gnome into a seperate recipe is a better idea.
>>> 
>>> I think that makes sense in some cases but I'd hate for it to become the
>>> default approach for issues like this as the duplication of code,
>>> parsing and build time etc. grate on me. Do we really need separate
>>> recipes?
>> 
>> I think for this case, yes. And I'll happily trade needing extra
>> buildtime for not needing USEFLAGS.
>> 
> The proposals for alternative recipes for the different combinations got
> voted down and PACKAGECONFIG was the preferred solution. I can't say I
> personally like everything about the outcome. I do however understand
> why we've ended up in that position and don't intend to undermine the
> usefulness of it.
> 
>>> I'll probably take this patch as it improves the situation IMO (and
>> is
>>> easy to change the configuration from a distro config if anyone does
>>> have an issue with it being disabled).
>> 
>> This patch changes the default behaviour in a way that distros need to
>> update their configs in order to keep the status quo. I know I use
>> distccmon-gnome on my boards, but will I remember 2 months from now
>> that this patch went in? I asked this before in a different context,
>> but I'll ask again: do you expect distro maintainers to vet each and
>> every commit that goes into OE-core to find out when default got
>> (silently) changed?
>> 
>> USEFLAGS should be a last resort when having seperate recipes doesn't
>> work out, not a default cure. 
> 
> The discussion and decision went against this, rightly or wrongly
> PACKAGECONFIG is here and we should start to use it. In some cases it
> will help you a lot, in others it will cause you a bit more work. Such
> is life.

Let's move this to the TSC and see if we can get this crap removed. There is already an existing ruling that USEFLAGS should be a last resort. I'm tired of yocto-marketing feel good patches making life harder for people actually using oe-core and its output.







[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 169 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 3/4] distcc: make distccmon-gnome optional and default to off

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 08:58 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 14 nov. 2011, om 22:48 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 21:55 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> Op 14 nov. 2011, om 21:39 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
> >>> On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 20:17 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >>>> I think splitting distccmon-gnome into a seperate recipe is a better idea.
> >>> 
> >>> I think that makes sense in some cases but I'd hate for it to become the
> >>> default approach for issues like this as the duplication of code,
> >>> parsing and build time etc. grate on me. Do we really need separate
> >>> recipes?
> >> 
> >> I think for this case, yes. And I'll happily trade needing extra
> >> buildtime for not needing USEFLAGS.
> >> 
> > The proposals for alternative recipes for the different combinations got
> > voted down and PACKAGECONFIG was the preferred solution. I can't say I
> > personally like everything about the outcome. I do however understand
> > why we've ended up in that position and don't intend to undermine the
> > usefulness of it.
> > 
> >>> I'll probably take this patch as it improves the situation IMO (and
> >> is
> >>> easy to change the configuration from a distro config if anyone does
> >>> have an issue with it being disabled).
> >> 
> >> This patch changes the default behaviour in a way that distros need to
> >> update their configs in order to keep the status quo. I know I use
> >> distccmon-gnome on my boards, but will I remember 2 months from now
> >> that this patch went in? I asked this before in a different context,
> >> but I'll ask again: do you expect distro maintainers to vet each and
> >> every commit that goes into OE-core to find out when default got
> >> (silently) changed?
> >> 
> >> USEFLAGS should be a last resort when having seperate recipes doesn't
> >> work out, not a default cure. 
> > 
> > The discussion and decision went against this, rightly or wrongly
> > PACKAGECONFIG is here and we should start to use it. In some cases it
> > will help you a lot, in others it will cause you a bit more work. Such
> > is life.
> 
> Let's move this to the TSC and see if we can get this crap removed.

Lets revisit the original problem - how can a user disable something
like X11 from being built when they don't need/want/care about it? We
have the layers mechanism but I don't think its reasonable for them to
have to bbappend everything with an optional X dependency which was the
only option previously available.

I can't say I love the PACKAGECONFIG code but equally I'm not aware of
any better proposal for solving a real world issue a significant portion
of the userbase has in some form (be it X11, gstreamer plugins or other
areas).

>  There is already an existing ruling that USEFLAGS should be a last
> resort. 

There was a discussion about *not* calling these USEFLAGS...

> I'm tired of yocto-marketing feel good patches making life harder for
> people actually using oe-core and its output.

I can think of several actual users who find PACKAGECONFIG makes their
life much easier. I'd guess they're not "proper" users though?

You keep talking about "them" and "us" and I'm really getting sick of
it. The whole point is we work as one team on OE-Core. This also means
we also take collective responsibility for actions ("disagree and
commit"). There are a ton of hoops I jump through when trying to
maintain OE-Core to ensure its not just me but everyone gets time for
review, discussion etc. of patches and that there is a decision making
process which involved others for major decisions (the TSC).

Decisions around PACKAGECONFIG were nothing to do with Yocto, Yocto
didn't ask for it. Since OE-Core committed to that direction, yes, Yocto
people have written some patches using it. Yocto did ensure during the
discussion about that feature it could solve some problems Yocto was
aware of.

Its ironic I'm now in the position I'm defending something I was never
keen on (but I do understand why on balance we probably do need it).

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [PATCH 3/4] distcc: make distccmon-gnome optional and default to off

[Paul Eggleton]

On Tuesday 15 November 2011 08:58:00 Koen Kooi wrote:
> Let's move this to the TSC and see if we can get this crap removed. There is
> already an existing ruling that USEFLAGS should be a last resort. I'm tired
> of yocto-marketing feel good patches making life harder for people actually
> using oe-core and its output.

Marketing has nothing to do with it. All I really want is to fix the problem 
that the build blows up if you try to build any image for any of the qemu* 
machines with x11 removed from DISTRO_FEATURES. I think it would have been 
nice to also be able to avoid having to build gtk+ and everything it depends 
upon for all such images regardless of whether or not it is really needed, but 
I can live without making that further cleanup if it's going to cause such an 
uproar.

If PACKAGE_CONFIG is not an acceptable solution to this problem I'll accept 
checking for x11 in DISTRO_FEATURES alone, if that's what it takes to get the 
real problem fixed.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [PATCH 3/4] distcc: make distccmon-gnome optional and default to off

[Koen Kooi]

Op 15 nov. 2011, om 12:44 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:

> On Tuesday 15 November 2011 08:58:00 Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Let's move this to the TSC and see if we can get this crap removed. There is
>> already an existing ruling that USEFLAGS should be a last resort. I'm tired
>> of yocto-marketing feel good patches making life harder for people actually
>> using oe-core and its output.
> 
> Marketing has nothing to do with it. All I really want is to fix the problem 
> that the build blows up if you try to build any image for any of the qemu* 
> machines with x11 removed from DISTRO_FEATURES.

Isn't a better question "Why are all images for qemu machines forcing distcc to get built?"?

> I think it would have been 
> nice to also be able to avoid having to build gtk+ and everything it depends 
> upon for all such images regardless of whether or not it is really needed, but 
> I can live without making that further cleanup if it's going to cause such an 
> uproar.
> 
> If PACKAGE_CONFIG is not an acceptable solution to this problem I'll accept 
> checking for x11 in DISTRO_FEATURES alone, if that's what it takes to get the 
> real problem fixed.

Or just make a seperate recipe for distccmon-gnome, that would avoid the need of any USEFLAGS. Should be just a matter of require distcc_$PV.bb ; EXTRA_OEOCONF = foo

regards,

Koen

Re: [PATCH 3/4] distcc: make distccmon-gnome optional and default to off

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 13:15 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 15 nov. 2011, om 12:44 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > On Tuesday 15 November 2011 08:58:00 Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> Let's move this to the TSC and see if we can get this crap removed. There is
> >> already an existing ruling that USEFLAGS should be a last resort. I'm tired
> >> of yocto-marketing feel good patches making life harder for people actually
> >> using oe-core and its output.
> > 
> > Marketing has nothing to do with it. All I really want is to fix the problem 
> > that the build blows up if you try to build any image for any of the qemu* 
> > machines with x11 removed from DISTRO_FEATURES.
> 
> Isn't a better question "Why are all images for qemu machines forcing distcc to get built?"?

Both questions are valid:

a) If I build distcc and I have x11 disabled, it shouldn't break.

b) Should qemu include distcc?

Traditionally, qemu-config does pull it in. Why? The qemu scripts allow
pass through of compilation to the build system instead of doing it
under emulation for a significant speed up in compile time. It was
originally felt that it should therefore maximally autoconfigure that
stuff transparently to the user.

If we don't think that is useful we can drop it. That is a separate
discussion to a) which seems to be the contentious problem and solving
b) is just hiding from the issue.

> Or just make a seperate recipe for distccmon-gnome, that would avoid
> the need of any USEFLAGS. Should be just a matter of require distcc_
> $PV.bb ; EXTRA_OEOCONF = foo

and the rest (resolving the various packaging conflicts so that
distcc-gnome only packages the gnome pieces and removes everything
else).

To put this quite simply, I think there is no good reason we shouldn't
use the mechanism we've selected to handle this kind of problem. We
should have defaults the reflect backwards compatibility. Other than
that where is the problem other than a general objection to
PACKAGECONFIG?

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [PATCH 3/4] distcc: make distccmon-gnome optional and default to off

[Koen Kooi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2265 bytes --]


Op 15 nov. 2011, om 14:43 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:

> On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 13:15 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Op 15 nov. 2011, om 12:44 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> On Tuesday 15 November 2011 08:58:00 Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>> Let's move this to the TSC and see if we can get this crap removed. There is
>>>> already an existing ruling that USEFLAGS should be a last resort. I'm tired
>>>> of yocto-marketing feel good patches making life harder for people actually
>>>> using oe-core and its output.
>>> 
>>> Marketing has nothing to do with it. All I really want is to fix the problem 
>>> that the build blows up if you try to build any image for any of the qemu* 
>>> machines with x11 removed from DISTRO_FEATURES.
>> 
>> Isn't a better question "Why are all images for qemu machines forcing distcc to get built?"?
> 
> Both questions are valid:
> 
> a) If I build distcc and I have x11 disabled, it shouldn't break.
> 
> b) Should qemu include distcc?
> 
> Traditionally, qemu-config does pull it in. Why? The qemu scripts allow
> pass through of compilation to the build system instead of doing it
> under emulation for a significant speed up in compile time. It was
> originally felt that it should therefore maximally autoconfigure that
> stuff transparently to the user.
> 
> If we don't think that is useful we can drop it. That is a separate
> discussion to a) which seems to be the contentious problem and solving
> b) is just hiding from the issue.
> 
>> Or just make a seperate recipe for distccmon-gnome, that would avoid
>> the need of any USEFLAGS. Should be just a matter of require distcc_
>> $PV.bb ; EXTRA_OEOCONF = foo
> 
> and the rest (resolving the various packaging conflicts so that
> distcc-gnome only packages the gnome pieces and removes everything
> else).
> 
> To put this quite simply, I think there is no good reason we shouldn't
> use the mechanism we've selected to handle this kind of problem. We
> should have defaults the reflect backwards compatibility. Other than
> that where is the problem other than a general objection to
> PACKAGECONFIG?

It forces a choice when there is a solution where things can coexist.

regards,

Koen

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 169 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 3/4] distcc: make distccmon-gnome optional and default to off

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 14:59 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 15 nov. 2011, om 14:43 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
> > To put this quite simply, I think there is no good reason we shouldn't
> > use the mechanism we've selected to handle this kind of problem. We
> > should have defaults the reflect backwards compatibility. Other than
> > that where is the problem other than a general objection to
> > PACKAGECONFIG?
> 
> It forces a choice when there is a solution where things can coexist.

There are multiple ways of coexisting and the configuration changing
based on DISTRO_FEATURES doesn't force a choice either.

Bottom line is we discussed and agreed a way of handling this and I'd
really like to have one preferred way of doing so. IMO the two recipe
approach duplicates build time and adds complexity into the recipe which
we can avoid using PACKAGECONFIG. Yes that has complexities of its own
but the sooner we start experimenting with it, the sooner we'll work
through any issues. There are certainly ways we can make things neater.
If it really does turn out to be a bad idea we can come up with good
reasons why we should get rid of it.

FWIW, if you want an example of how badly wrong a two recipe approach
can get, see the dpkg/update-alternatives mess I fixed yesterday.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [PATCH 3/4] distcc: make distccmon-gnome optional and default to off

[Koen Kooi]

Op 15 nov. 2011, om 15:42 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:

> On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 14:59 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Op 15 nov. 2011, om 14:43 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
>>> To put this quite simply, I think there is no good reason we shouldn't
>>> use the mechanism we've selected to handle this kind of problem. We
>>> should have defaults the reflect backwards compatibility. Other than
>>> that where is the problem other than a general objection to
>>> PACKAGECONFIG?
>> 
>> It forces a choice when there is a solution where things can coexist.
> 
> There are multiple ways of coexisting and the configuration changing
> based on DISTRO_FEATURES doesn't force a choice either.

It does force a choice, since you don't want to change DISTRO_FEATURES when distributing binaries. If changing it is safe, then it isn't a DISTRO_FEATURE.

regards,

Koen

Re: [PATCH 3/4] distcc: make distccmon-gnome optional and default to off

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 15:55 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 15 nov. 2011, om 15:42 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 14:59 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> Op 15 nov. 2011, om 14:43 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
> >>> To put this quite simply, I think there is no good reason we shouldn't
> >>> use the mechanism we've selected to handle this kind of problem. We
> >>> should have defaults the reflect backwards compatibility. Other than
> >>> that where is the problem other than a general objection to
> >>> PACKAGECONFIG?
> >> 
> >> It forces a choice when there is a solution where things can coexist.
> > 
> > There are multiple ways of coexisting and the configuration changing
> > based on DISTRO_FEATURES doesn't force a choice either.
> 
> It does force a choice, since you don't want to change DISTRO_FEATURES
> when distributing binaries. If changing it is safe, then it isn't a
> DISTRO_FEATURE.

I'd expect a given distro to be able to figure out in advance whether it
intends to have X11 or not?

If unsure you leave it present...

I really don't see the problem here.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [PATCH 3/4] distcc: make distccmon-gnome optional and default to off

[Koen Kooi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1381 bytes --]


Op 15 nov. 2011, om 16:12 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:

> On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 15:55 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Op 15 nov. 2011, om 15:42 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 14:59 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>> Op 15 nov. 2011, om 14:43 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
>>>>> To put this quite simply, I think there is no good reason we shouldn't
>>>>> use the mechanism we've selected to handle this kind of problem. We
>>>>> should have defaults the reflect backwards compatibility. Other than
>>>>> that where is the problem other than a general objection to
>>>>> PACKAGECONFIG?
>>>> 
>>>> It forces a choice when there is a solution where things can coexist.
>>> 
>>> There are multiple ways of coexisting and the configuration changing
>>> based on DISTRO_FEATURES doesn't force a choice either.
>> 
>> It does force a choice, since you don't want to change DISTRO_FEATURES
>> when distributing binaries. If changing it is safe, then it isn't a
>> DISTRO_FEATURE.
> 
> I'd expect a given distro to be able to figure out in advance whether it
> intends to have X11 or not?
> 
> If unsure you leave it present...
> 
> I really don't see the problem here.

The patch here doesn't use 'x11', but 'gui' as PACKAGECONFIG. Triggering on x11 is fine in this case.

regards,

Koen

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 169 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 3/4] distcc: make distccmon-gnome optional and default to off

[Paul Eggleton]

On Tuesday 15 November 2011 16:23:07 Koen Kooi wrote:
> The patch here doesn't use 'x11', but 'gui' as PACKAGECONFIG. Triggering on
> x11 is fine in this case.

Unless I've misunderstood, PACKAGECONFIG's namespace is specific to the 
package; so it does not really matter what it is called. If we're talking 
about changing to use DISTRO_FEATURES then yes, x11 would be the feature to 
check for.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [PATCH 3/4] distcc: make distccmon-gnome optional and default to off

[Paul Eggleton]

On Tuesday 15 November 2011 15:55:38 Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 15 nov. 2011, om 15:42 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
> > On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 14:59 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> Op 15 nov. 2011, om 14:43 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
> >>> To put this quite simply, I think there is no good reason we
> >>> shouldn't
> >>> use the mechanism we've selected to handle this kind of problem. We
> >>> should have defaults the reflect backwards compatibility. Other than
> >>> that where is the problem other than a general objection to
> >>> PACKAGECONFIG?
> >> 
> >> It forces a choice when there is a solution where things can coexist.
> > 
> > There are multiple ways of coexisting and the configuration changing
> > based on DISTRO_FEATURES doesn't force a choice either.
> 
> It does force a choice, since you don't want to change DISTRO_FEATURES when
> distributing binaries. If changing it is safe, then it isn't a
> DISTRO_FEATURE.

It forces nothing - in fact it allows a distro to make choices.

DISTRO_FEATURES and PACKAGECONFIG are both expressions of distro policy which 
is intended to be set before binaries are produced; PACKAGECONFIG is simply on 
a per-recipe basis rather than across multiple recipes.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [PATCH 3/4] distcc: make distccmon-gnome optional and default to off

[Paul Menzel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1523 bytes --]

Am Montag, den 14.11.2011, 21:48 +0000 schrieb Richard Purdie:
> On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 21:55 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> > Op 14 nov. 2011, om 21:39 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
> > > On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 20:17 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> > >> I think splitting distccmon-gnome into a seperate recipe is a better idea.
> > > 
> > > I think that makes sense in some cases but I'd hate for it to become the
> > > default approach for issues like this as the duplication of code,
> > > parsing and build time etc. grate on me. Do we really need separate
> > > recipes?
> > 
> > I think for this case, yes. And I'll happily trade needing extra
> > buildtime for not needing USEFLAGS.
> > 
> The proposals for alternative recipes for the different combinations got
> voted down and PACKAGECONFIG was the preferred solution.

Where is this vote (and discussion) documented? I found nothing in the
OE Wiki and searching for it with »openembedded packageconfig vote
oe-core list« brought up only some minutes [1].

I also do not remember anything on openembedded-devel where such general
discussion definitely belong in my opinion.

It would be great if somebody could help me by giving me an URL.

> I can't say I personally like everything about the outcome. I do
> however understand why we've ended up in that position and don't
> intend to undermine the usefulness of it.

[…]


Thanks,

Paul


[1] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openembedded.core/7688

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 3/4] distcc: make distccmon-gnome optional and default to off

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 09:47 +0100, Paul Menzel wrote:
> Am Montag, den 14.11.2011, 21:48 +0000 schrieb Richard Purdie:
> > On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 21:55 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> > > Op 14 nov. 2011, om 21:39 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
> > > > On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 20:17 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> > > >> I think splitting distccmon-gnome into a seperate recipe is a better idea.
> > > > 
> > > > I think that makes sense in some cases but I'd hate for it to become the
> > > > default approach for issues like this as the duplication of code,
> > > > parsing and build time etc. grate on me. Do we really need separate
> > > > recipes?
> > > 
> > > I think for this case, yes. And I'll happily trade needing extra
> > > buildtime for not needing USEFLAGS.
> > > 
> > The proposals for alternative recipes for the different combinations got
> > voted down and PACKAGECONFIG was the preferred solution.
> 
> Where is this vote (and discussion) documented? I found nothing in the
> OE Wiki and searching for it with »openembedded packageconfig vote
> oe-core list« brought up only some minutes [1].
> 
> I also do not remember anything on openembedded-devel where such general
> discussion definitely belong in my opinion.
> 
> It would be great if somebody could help me by giving me an URL.

The reference I could find was:

http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/tsc/2011-October/000302.html

which asked for objections amongst the TSC members, non were received.
I'm drawing a blank finding the previous discussion, I think there was a
different term used and I can't think what it was which makes searching
hard. There was also discussion of the actual patches on the mailing
list (which IMO is where the discussion should really happen).

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [PATCH 3/4] distcc: make distccmon-gnome optional and default to off

[Paul Eggleton]

On Monday 14 November 2011 21:55:28 Koen Kooi wrote:
> This patch changes the default behaviour in a way that distros need to
> update their configs in order to keep the status quo. I know I use
> distccmon-gnome on my boards, 

I have to say I'm surprised, I hadn't considered the distcc UI to be 
particularly useful in our context so I'm surprised that anyone is actually 
using it, but everyone has their own requirements I guess.

> but will I remember 2 months from now that
> this patch went in? I asked this before in a different context, but I'll
> ask again: do you expect distro maintainers to vet each and every commit
> that goes into OE-core to find out when default got (silently) changed?

There are degrees of "silently". Given that this patch is being reviewed on 
the mailing list I think it's anything but silent.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

[PATCH 4/4] qemu-config: update DESCRIPTION and LICENSE

[Paul Eggleton]

* Make the DESCRIPTION more accurate
* LICENSE is actually GPLv2 according to the COPYING.GPL file

Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
---
 meta/recipes-bsp/qemu-config/qemu-config.bb |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/qemu-config/qemu-config.bb b/meta/recipes-bsp/qemu-config/qemu-config.bb
index 4baf175..2fd9667 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-bsp/qemu-config/qemu-config.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/qemu-config/qemu-config.bb
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
-DESCRIPTION = "Adds scripts to use distcc on the host system under qemu"
+DESCRIPTION = "Adds scripts and configuration for development on qemu images"
 
-LICENSE = "GPL"
+LICENSE = "GPLv2"
 LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://${WORKDIR}/COPYING.GPL;md5=751419260aa954499f7abaabaa882bbe"
 
 COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(qemuarm|qemux86|qemumips|qemuppc)"
-- 
1.7.5.4