> On 24 Oct 2024, at 12:14, Alexander Kanavin <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 at 13:01, Ross Burton via lists.openembedded.org > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> +PACKAGECONFIG ??= "" >>> +PACKAGECONFIG[pam] = "--with-pam=yes,--with-pam=no,libpam” >> >> We have a ‘pam’ DISTRO_FEATURE, should we just respect that as the default >> PACKAGECONFIG using bb.utils.filter? > > Only if the host contamination is tracked down and solved? Otherwise > this should not be an option, but rather a hard disable with a comment > on how to reproduce.
Well, if there’s no pam in distro features then it is explicitly turned off, and if there is pam in distro features then we have a libpam in DEPENDS. The failure path is in https://github.com/ppp-project/ppp/blob/master/m4/ax_check_pam.m4, yet again autoconf-archive has some pretty terrible logic. It looks like if it can find libpam with pkg-config then it won’t try and hunt around /usr, which is where the contamination comes from. As long as we either explicitly disable or enable-with-DEPENDS, there is no contamination. Ross
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#206290): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/206290 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/109175489/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
