On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 14:31 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > Op 5 mei 2011, om 14:21 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: > > > On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 13:46 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > >> Op 5 mei 2011, om 13:38 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: > >> > >>> Hi Paul, > >>> > >>> Great work in doing this, thanks. I was just looking at it with a view > >>> to making machine support cleaner and I think there are still things we > >>> can likely to do help with this. As one example: > >>> > >>> On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 15:51 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: > >>>> +++ b/meta-yocto/recipes-qt/qt4/qt4-x11-free_4.6.3.bbappend > >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ > >>>> +QT_GLFLAGS_atom-pc = "-opengl" > >>>> + > >>>> diff --git a/meta-yocto/recipes-qt/qt4/qt4-x11-free_4.7.2.bbappend > >>>> b/meta-yocto/recipes-qt/qt4/qt4-x11-free_4.7.2.bbappend > >>>> new file mode 100644 > >>>> index 0000000..076ade2 > >>>> --- /dev/null > >>>> +++ b/meta-yocto/recipes-qt/qt4/qt4-x11-free_4.7.2.bbappend > >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ > >>>> +QT_GLFLAGS_atom-pc = "-opengl" > >>> > >>> could we set QT_GLFLAGS in the machine.conf file instead of using a > >>> bbappend? > >> > >> Putting such USEFLAGS in machines sounds like a bad idea. In this case > >> enabling it globally and falling back to mesa sw rendering at runtime > >> is a better idea. The GL flag only enables extra API and libs, so it's > >> good to have. > > > > Agreed, longer term I think this is going to be the better way to handle > > this. In this day and age, defaulting to sw rendering is probably the > > sane thing to do. > > Something like SOC_FAMILY would help here.
In some cases. > > Equally, moving this from a .bbappend to the machine file is a bit > > cleaner too though :) > > Is it? Do you really want the machine to know about all the knobs in > all the different layers? The .bbappends clearly signals a change to > the recipe, hiding it in the machine.conf will just confuse people. > And when changing options you need to edit the machine and then use > PR_INC in a different file. Using a bbappend limits that to a single > file I'm not saying this makes sense for every bbappend option. For something like QT and which is a part of OECore, I'm leaning towards being less concerned about it though and making *every* QT machine write a bbappend seems a little extreme the other way. Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
