Hi Richard, Di you have some time to think about it?
Regards, Andrej -----Original Message----- From: Andrej Valek [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 19. septembra 2018 15:09 To: Richard Purdie; [email protected] Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] staging: remove hard-coded values from _FIXMEs Hi Richard, I have sent this patch, because of modification this replacement. What about adding TMPDIR into this hard-coded array? I think, even if it isn't added into EXTRA_STAGING_FIXMES it shouldn't influence default behavior. Regards, Andrej On 9/18/18 2:03 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Mon, 2018-09-17 at 15:41 +0200, Andrej Valek wrote: >> Let users to override these values in their layers and could match >> them with values in EXTRA_STAGING_FIXMES. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andrej Valek <[email protected]> >> --- >> meta/classes/staging.bbclass | 4 +++- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/meta/classes/staging.bbclass >> b/meta/classes/staging.bbclass index 84e13bab59..6db501dac1 100644 >> --- a/meta/classes/staging.bbclass >> +++ b/meta/classes/staging.bbclass >> @@ -127,6 +127,8 @@ python do_populate_sysroot_setscene () { } >> addtask do_populate_sysroot_setscene >> >> +SYSROOT_STAGING_FIXMES ?= "COMPONENTS_DIR HOSTTOOLS_DIR PKGDATA_DIR >> PSEUDO_LOCALSTATEDIR LOGFIFO" >> + >> def staging_copyfile(c, target, dest, postinsts, seendirs): >> import errno >> >> @@ -167,7 +169,7 @@ def staging_processfixme(fixme, target, >> recipesysroot, recipesysrootnative, d): >> if not fixme: >> return >> cmd = "sed -e 's:^[^/]*/:%s/:g' %s | xargs sed -i -e >> 's:FIXMESTAGINGDIRTARGET:%s:g; s:FIXMESTAGINGDIRHOST:%s:g'" % >> (target, " ".join(fixme), recipesysroot, recipesysrootnative) >> - for fixmevar in ['COMPONENTS_DIR', 'HOSTTOOLS_DIR', >> 'PKGDATA_DIR', 'PSEUDO_LOCALSTATEDIR', 'LOGFIFO']: >> + for fixmevar in d.getVar("SYSROOT_STAGING_FIXMES").split(): >> fixme_path = d.getVar(fixmevar) >> cmd += " -e 's:FIXME_%s:%s:g'" % (fixmevar, fixme_path) >> bb.debug(2, cmd) > > I think this was deliberately left this way rather than letting users > override it as the scope issues around this are not obvious and making > it a variable gives users expectations which may not be met. > > I'm going from memory with jetlag but I think that this variable would > not work from recipe context, you'd have to do it in global scope and > changing this in global scope for everything is a pretty serious > change. > > The reason is that it can get called when building any recipe sysroot > so the datastore isn't to context of the original creator. > > Cheers, > > Richard > -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
