On 2026-03-14 6:28 a.m., Richard Purdie via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
On Sat, 2026-03-14 at 10:00 +0000, Richard Purdie via lists.openembedded.org
wrote:
Options could be:
a) move the recipe to core and add another entry to
sstate.bbclass/sstatesig.py . That doesn't help it anyone else does
this
b) Create some layer.conf variables which allow these to be
defined/added generically. That would need careful manipulation of the
hash variable dependencies to stop things rebuilding like crazy.
Having said this all out loud, b) is the only realistic option so I've
just sent a patch which does that. I don't like it but it is the least
worst option I can see right now.
Cheers,
Richard
Notes from patch review meeting:
Joshua said that he'd write a test based on the native-sstate being
machine independent.
Here the sdk dummy packages should be independent of SDK machine.
Is that right Joshua? Want a YP BZ ?
../Randy
--
# Randy MacLeod
# Wind River Linux
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#233259):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/233259
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/118311680/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
