From: Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>
To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org
Subject: Re: RFC: thinking about DEPENDS properties
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:27:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <glnjmv$kuc$1@ger.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <497EEAE6.7090904@gmx.net>
On 27-01-09 12:07, Robert Schuster wrote:
> Hi,
> today I was thinking about some missing semantics in OE's DEPENDS
> variable and had the idea of reusing the way we write SRC_URI entries
> for them.
>
> The issues:
>
> 1) Strong dependencies
>
> Some recipes have a strong dependency on another recipe. Take llvm as an
> example. llvm puts a bunch of static libraries (.a) and object code
> files into staging which another program links to. So, if llvm is
> recompiled (e.g. changed CFLAGS or applied a patch) those having a
> dependency on llvm should be recompiled as well.
Isn't that what BB_STAMP_POLICY=whitelist and BB_STAMP_POLICY=full
accomplish?
regards,
Koen
>
> In order to express this, I would write:
>
> DEPENDS += "llvm;strong=true"
>
> 2) Minimum& Maximum supported versions
> Some recipes cannot be built with certain versions of other recipes.
>
> DEPENDS += "automake-native;minver=1.10"
>
> If the distro uses a lower automake version OE should error out when
> someone tries to build that recipe:
>
> ERROR: Recipe 'foo' needs at least 'automake-native 1.10' but
> 'PREFERRED_VERSION_automake-native' is set to '1.9.6'.
>
> --
>
> I know this brings in a lot of complicated things to think about, e.g.
> what is the result of:
>
> foo.inc: DEPENDS = "bar;minver=0.8;maxver=0.9"
>
> foo_1.0: require foo.inc
> DEPENDS += "bar;minver=1.0"
>
> Perhaps to many components in OE already expect DEPENDS to be a
> whitespace separated list of words and we should be add another variable
> whose only purpose is to set properties for existing DEPENDS entries:
>
>
> foo_1.0:
> require foo.inc
> # Replaces value from foo.inc
> DEPENDSPROPS = "bar;minver=1.0"
>
> --
>
> My main concern is that the knowledge about which recipe can live in
> harmony with another is currently implicit. There is no way to express
> this except by writing a comment (which is almost never done).
>
> Regards
> Robert
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-27 18:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-27 11:07 RFC: thinking about DEPENDS properties Robert Schuster
2009-01-27 11:29 ` Phil Blundell
2009-01-27 18:27 ` Koen Kooi [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='glnjmv$kuc$1@ger.gmane.org' \
--to=k.kooi@student.utwente.nl \
--cc=openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org \
--cc=openembedded-devel@openembedded.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox