On Fri, 2023-01-06 at 11:58 +0100, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 at 11:47, Martin Jansa <martin.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > For example, imagine the dependency is "virtual/libc" and somehow you > > > break the providers of it, i.e. break the glibc recipe. All of a sudden > > > "bitbake world" would return success even though it built nothing since > > > anything depending on virtual/libc was magically removed (which is > > > nearly everything at some point). > > > > > > The conclusion I came too last time I thought about this was they we > > > really did want to mark up the cases where things have a specific > > > requirement, even if at times that is painful. > > > > > > FWIW: here is the earlier (2014) discussion about this: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/1414675717.7649.56.camel@ted/ > > Then there's a more specific question: should we treat opengl as an > optional distro feature at all? > > We don't treat 'posix api' as a distro feature, even though > theoretically we could, and in 2023 opengl is pretty much on the same > level. What is being gained by ability to block it out on the distro > level?
Most hardware is capable of running posix apis however there is a large subset of hardware without displays that doesn't care about opengl. There is also hardware with simple graphics that doesn't support GL, or doesn't support it without horrible binary only stuff. We there aren't going to make opengl mandatory any time soon. Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#175576): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/175576 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/95842308/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
