On Tue, 2023-05-30 at 16:33 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> I might be missing something here, but can the free-form, anonymous
> python code block be avoided? Don't we have PACKAGES_DYNAMIC for this
> purpose?
PACKAGES_DYNAMIC is for when we can't predict the packages a recipe
might generate. A good example might be kernel modules.
You're right that we could add a do_split_packages() call to the qemu
recipe have have it generate these dynamically.
The downside would be the namespacing as dynamic packages need to have
specific namespaces (e.g. kernel-module-XXX). This means qemu-mips
wouldn't be an option (conflicts with non dynamic packages like qemu-
dbg).
We could use a more specific prefix like qemu-system-XXX and qemu-user-
XXX and use do_split_packages
I did also wonder about using more specific inline python for some of
this, things along the lines of:
PACKAGES += '${@" ".join("qemu-system-" + x for x in
d.getVar('QEMU_TARGETS').split())}'
I'm also not a fan of the python code block.
We do use do_split_packages() in other recipes like gstreamer to handle
things like this.
Cheers,
Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#181933):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/181933
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/99219254/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
