On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Andreas Müller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:29 AM, Richard Purdie > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, 2013-03-26 at 15:28 +0100, Andreas Müller wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Richard Purdie >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > On Tue, 2013-03-26 at 12:40 +0100, Andreas Müller wrote: >>> >> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Burton, Ross <[email protected]> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > On 25 March 2013 23:47, Andreas Müller <[email protected]> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> fixes: >>> >> >> | ERROR: Multiple .bb files are due to be built which each provide >>> >> >> virtual/gtk-update-icon-cache-native >>> >> >> | >>> >> >> (/home/Superandy/data/oe-core/sources/openembedded-core/meta/recipes-gnome/gtk+/gtk-update-icon-cache-native_3.4.4.bb >>> >> >> | >>> >> >> virtual:native:/home/Superandy/data/oe-core/sources/openembedded-core/meta/recipes-gnome/gtk+/gtk+_2.24.15.bb). >>> >> >> | This usually means one provides something the other doesn't and >>> >> >> should. >>> >> > >>> >> > NACK. >>> >> > >>> >> > The only way this can happen is if something is depending on >>> >> > gtk+-native, as everything in oe-core (should) depends on >>> >> > virtual/gtk-update-icon-cache: >>> >> > >>> >> > commit f07515096ea39e267cd3ebeea08cffbba1af07e0 >>> >> > Author: Ross Burton <[email protected]> >>> >> > Date: Mon Mar 4 12:52:45 2013 +0000 >>> >> > >>> >> > default-providers: add default virtual provider for >>> >> > gtk-update-icon-cache >>> >> > >>> >> > Use a virtual provider instead of a hard dependency so that if >>> >> > gtk+-native is >>> >> > required in some configuration, this provider can be changed and >>> >> > then >>> >> > gtk+-native and gtk-update-icon-cache-native won't be both built >>> >> > and conflict in >>> >> > the sysroot. >>> >> > >>> >> > Presumably some application you've got is explicitly depending on >>> >> > gtk+-native, probably for the icon cache handling. It should drop >>> >> > that build dependency and use the class instead. >>> >> > >>> >> > Your fix "works" but will cause file overwrite warnings in sysroot >>> >> > when you actually do want a gtk+-native, for example if you do want to >>> >> > build a native gtk+ application or some reason. >>> >> > >>> >> > Ross >>> >> Why do we need two providers which need pinning doing exactly the same? >>> > >>> > I'd love to remove gtk+-native. >>> > >>> > The icon-cache-native gives about a 5% build speedup as it has a lot >>> > less dependencies than gtk+-native so it is a good thing. We could fix >>> > things to coexist however unless there is a good reason to keep gtk >>> > +-native around, we should switch things over. Things were therefore >>> > left like this to provide gentle pressure to layers that are still using >>> > gtk+-native. >>> > >>> > If there are valid cases where gtk+-native is still necessary we can >>> > revisit this but we're not aware of any right now. >>> > >>> > Cheers, >>> > >>> > Richard >>> The patch I sent was the attempt to take the first step for >>> gtk-update-icon-cache-native. >>> What I see from the tests is that there is no fallout using build time >>> optimized gtk-update-icon-cache-native based on gtk3. There is no need >>> for alternate providers here. OK the patch didn't replace >>> virtual/gtk-update-icon-cache-native by gtk-update-icon-cache-native - >>> but I could send V2 if the direction is agreed. >> >> So to be clear you're saying we don't need gtk+-native for any user >> you're aware of? Can we remove the BBCLASSEXTEND for native in that >> case? >> >>> If I remember correct there are other gtk-native parts used by the >>> offline image creation. I don't know what we can replace by optimized >>> native recipes (based on gtk3). >> >> I don't think any of the offline image pieces are using gtk+-native any >> more... >> >> Cheers, >> >> Richard > I will repeat my tests with complete remove of gtk+- native extension. > If it works I will send a patch - otherwise drop a note. > In my environment I found the following references on gtk+-native:
meta-browser: chromium openembedded-core: packagegroup-toolset-native openembedded-core: sstate.bbclass openembedded-core: seperatebuilddir.inc I have no idea what the oe-core part is for. Since chromium never built for me: Could the meta-browser friends check which part of gtk+-native is required - or if replacing gtk+-native by gtk-update-icon-cache-native is enough? Andreas _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
