On Wed, 2018-01-03 at 16:35 -0500, Randy MacLeod wrote: > I expect I'm missing an undocumented recipe rule here but... > > > Yes, the race seems to only occur on morty and earlier, but > the dependency is real and not yet listed explicitly in the recipe. > > $ grep flex tmp/work/i586-poky-linux/gmp/6.1.2- > r0/temp/log.do_configure > checking for flex... flex > > It's resolved transitively through: > gmp -> something -> binutils-cross-foo -> flex-native
I think it can happily build without flex by not re-generating certain files. Whilst on target gmp does seem to have an indirect dependency, our cross compiler does not: $ grep flex tmp/work/x86_64-linux/gmp-native/6.1.2-r0/temp/log.do_configure checking for flex... no due to recipe specific sysroots and HOSTTOOLS, this is all at least deterministic and it either builds with or without it deterministically in all cases. > I was on the fence about whether to be explicit or to rely on > most/all recipes pulling in binutils-cross-foo via default > rules. In looking at the guidance in 4.3.9 Dependencies: > > http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/current/dev-manual/dev-manual.html#n > ew-dependencies > and briefly checking out LLVM's lld loader recipe where it seems > that flex-native might not be needed so it's best to be explicit. > > Unless there's an objection, Bai will re-submit the simple > fix with an updated commit log. If anyone has time, they > can check if the LLVM lld build really does NOT pull in flex-native > and if not, then add explicit dependencies as required. Actually, I do strongly object to adding in a flex-native dependency to gmp-native and lengthening an already long/cumbersome toolchain bootstrap process. Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
