On Tuesday 24 January 2012 17:26:42 Khem Raj wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Saul Wold <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 01/24/2012 09:42 AM, Khem Raj wrote: > >> task-core-tools-debug, task-core-tools-profile, task-core-tools-testapps > >> otherwise if we choose one through PACKAGE_GROUPS all packages > >> are built since they are in same recipe. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj<[email protected]> > >> --- > >> .../conf/distro/include/distro_tracking_fields.inc | 26 +++++-- > >> meta/conf/multilib.conf | 4 +- > >> meta/recipes-core/tasks/task-core-tools-debug.bb | 26 ++++++ > >> ...sk-core-tools.bb => task-core-tools-profile.bb} | 81 > >> ++++++-------------- > >> .../recipes-core/tasks/task-core-tools-testapps.bb | 46 +++++++++++ > >> 5 files changed, 119 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-) > >> create mode 100644 meta/recipes-core/tasks/task-core-tools-debug.bb > >> rename meta/recipes-core/tasks/{task-core-tools.bb => > >> task-core-tools-profile.bb} (48%) > > > > This breaks meta-yocto which has a task-core-tools.bbappend > > that bbappend is redundant. You should just delete it anyway from meta-yocto
Amusingly I was thinking "who the heck put that in there?" and, wouldn't you know it, it turned out to be me... I think at the time I was concerned only with moving pieces out of OE-Core that were hardware-specific without making any judgements about whether they were worthwhile or not. I'd have to defer to someone who knows more about these tools, but if the concern is that systemtap and lttng-ust might not be suitable for all machines, we could simply use RRECOMMENDS in OE-Core and then set COMPATIBLE_MACHINE for them in BSPs. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
