On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 8:52 AM Alexander Kanavin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 at 22:07, Marek Vasut <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The lzop is called in oe-core and I was under the impression that > > oe-core shouldn't depend on anything except bitbake . So either this > > stuff should be moved to meta-oe too (which would be unfortunate growth > > of dependencies) or the lzop should be reinstated . I would obviously be > > in favor of the later. > > There are plenty of recipes in oe-core that have optional features > (enabled via PACKAGECONFIG) that depend on recipes that are not in > core. If you enable them, bitbake will say that the needed recipe is > missing and then you need to figure out which layer to add (typically > something in meta-openembedded tree). This is not that different: > optional feature, disabled by default, and the error will be the same: > missing lzop recipe. > I think this case is slightly different as this optional dependency might be "enabled" by MACHINE config in some BSP layer and BSP layer depending on meta-oe just to build the kernel (with BSP preferred compression) isn't great - compared with some DISTRO config enabling some additional PACKAGECONFIG in some other recipe the DISTRO uses. At least if Marek agrees to maintain it instead of restoring Denys as maintainer :). Cheers,
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#191178): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/191178 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/102759947/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
