From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.cvg.de (mail.cvg.de [62.153.82.30]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C89C6AF56 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:59:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.cvg.de (mail.cvg.de [62.153.82.30]) by mailout-1.intern.sigma-chemnitz.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r6PFx1IP020206 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:59:02 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sigma-chemnitz.de; s=v2012061000; t=1374767942; bh=FRwrExgT/AajrBhbATRee5lj+lMn+n32Jw7vHRZhbYs=; h=From:To:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Sender; b=QKjdOP/DQ/sANQT3CuqMj5THQrwazsbNq6i4NVjQ8VoyqtR8gPJqAD8neZZmvs1rC Od898zMAV0m6tub3Q4jXUSbeasHQhgUAHPGxeDlnWB81x02iq+s+izdWF89JO9edJM OXOx5C1s4wKS4bueDl2zushU2+xUAzzCV16XI9fA= Received: from ensc-virt.intern.sigma-chemnitz.de (ensc-virt.intern.sigma-chemnitz.de [192.168.3.24]) by mail.cvg.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r6PFwwxh000412 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:58:59 +0200 Received: from ensc by ensc-virt.intern.sigma-chemnitz.de with local (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1V2NwP-0000CW-Rd for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:58:57 +0200 From: Enrico Scholz To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org References: <1373325035-29814-1-git-send-email-sgw@linux.intel.com> <4F2BF532-D3A4-431E-8905-E4F33FBF80D5@dominion.thruhere.net> Mail-Followup-To: Enrico Scholz Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:58:57 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4F2BF532-D3A4-431E-8905-E4F33FBF80D5@dominion.thruhere.net> (Koen Kooi's message of "Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:02:20 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: Enrico Scholz X-DSPAM-Result: Innocent X-DSPAM-Probability: 0 X-DSPAM-Confidence: 1 X-Spam-Score: -4.8 X-Spam-Level: ---- X-Spam-Tests: AWL, BAYES_00, DKIM_ADSP_ALL, RP_MATCHES_RCVD, SPF_NEUTRAL, DSPAM_INNOCENT X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.73 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] util-linux: Use PACKAGECONFIG to control pam and system config options X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:59:03 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain Koen Kooi writes: > The ??= operator is too weak > ... > -PACKAGECONFIG_class-target ??= "${@base_contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'pam', 'libpam', '', d)} \ > +PACKAGECONFIG_class-target ?= "${@base_contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'pam', 'pam', '', d)} \ > ${@base_contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'systemd', 'systemd', '', d)} " good to see that I am not the only one hitting this problem. But does there exist some explanation for this behavior? Lots of other packages have | PACKAGECONFIG ??= and it seems to work there. It might be related to the '_class-target' override but that's a nasty, unpredictable bug causing silent breakage. Something like | localconfig = "" | localconfig_class-target = "${@base_contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'pam', 'pam', '', d)}... | | PACKAGECONFIG ??= "${localconfig}" and forbidding '??' in override-constructs might make things clearer. Enrico