On Tue, 2018-06-05 at 16:27 -0500, Joshua Watt wrote: > On Tue, 2018-06-05 at 14:34 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > Do you still need this on morty? > > If possible. We are (unfortunately) still on morty. > > > > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 09:45:12AM -0500, Joshua Watt wrote: > > > b42044aaf removed the XDC tools from the main package, but this > > > broke > > > the ability to include the XDC tools in an SDK. Add the tools > > > back > > > to > > > the -dev package. Also fix up INSANE_SKIP. > > > > > > Change-Id: I902cc1a841e40c1a3bdc5286d03f999276119052 > > > Signed-off-by: Joshua Watt <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > recipes-ti/devtools/ti-xdctools-common.inc | 4 +++- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/recipes-ti/devtools/ti-xdctools-common.inc > > > b/recipes- > > > ti/devtools/ti-xdctools-common.inc > > > index d2d0df45..a3949cad 100644 > > > --- a/recipes-ti/devtools/ti-xdctools-common.inc > > > +++ b/recipes-ti/devtools/ti-xdctools-common.inc > > > @@ -13,12 +13,14 @@ do_install() { > > > cp ${CP_ARGS} ${S}/* ${D}${XDC_INSTALL_DIR_RECIPE} > > > } > > > > > > +FILES_${PN}-dev = "${XDC_INSTALL_DIR_RECIPE}" > > I was going to ask about this.... It seems counter to the mechanism > used in some of the other (TI) recipes to put these files in the -dev > package. It seems that most recipes that are intended to be native > tools include their files in the "${PN}" package instead of the > "${PN}- > dev" package. For example, ti-cgt-pru, ti-cgt-arm-native, and ti- > cgt6x- > 7-native all do this. The recipes that are putting files in "-dev" > appear to be on-target recipes. This layout makes more sense to me, > and > fits better with our use case. What we would like to do is add: > > TOOLCHAIN_HOST_TASK += "nativesdk-ti-xdctools" > > however, with this patch as currently written, we would have to do: > > TOOLCHAIN_HOST_TASK += "nativesdk-ti-xdctools-dev" > > > I used -dev in this patch because the referenced commit removed the > files from "${PN}", and I wasn't sure if there was a reason (that, > and > at the time I didn't fully comprehend the difference between native > and > target recipes that I described above). Do you know if there was a > reason the FILE_${PN} was removed in b42044aaf? > > Thanks, > Joshua Watt > > > > + > > > BBCLASSEXTEND = "native nativesdk" > > > > > > INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP = "1" > > > INHIBIT_SYSROOT_STRIP = "1" > > > INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT = "1" > > > -INSANE_SKIP_${PN} = "installed-vs-shipped" > > > +INSANE_SKIP_${PN}-dev = "libdir dev-elf arch file-rdeps" > > > > > > # Prevent internal libs from getting picked up > > > PRIVATE_LIBS = " \ > > > -- > > > 2.17.0 > > > > > > -- > > > _______________________________________________ > > > meta-ti mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-ti > > >
Ping? -- _______________________________________________ meta-ti mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-ti
