On Thursday, January 23, 2014 09:31:47 AM Chris Larson wrote: > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Khem Raj <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Friday, December 06, 2013 05:42:26 PM Khem Raj wrote: > > > ??= does not react at all with > > > BOOST_LIBS += "${@base_contains('PACKAGECONFIG', 'python', 'python', '', > > > d)}" > > > > > > even though we have > > > > > > PACKAGECONFIG ??= "" it does not honor it and always add python to > > > BOOST_LIBS but the dependency is not added so it fails to build > > > complaining for missing python headers which is a understood outcome > > > > > > When converted to ?= it works as expected and only add --with-python > > > in bjam when python is specified in PACKAGECONFIG otherwise not. > > > > > > Is it a bitbake bug ? in anycase ?= should be enough of loose rope > > > to let user/distro configure the packageconfig policy > > > > OK so the problem is that I have meta-ros in my layer-mix and in that > > layer > > it defines PACKAGECONFIG ?= "python" IMO it should have appended instead > > of > > redefining. Thats why I was seeing what I was seeing. > > It's worth noting that recipes, in general, should use ?= rather than ??=, > but config files, in general, should use ??=. Otherwise it becomes > impossible for the config metadata to define an overriding default -- the > last ??= wins, after all, and that would always be the recipe. IMO default > values in the recipe are there to give sane behavior when there's no > configuration coming in from elsewhere, not to override configuration > defaults.
yes I think thats a good point. so lets consider this patch for inclusion now we know the reason, I can resubmit with proper subject and patch header -- -Khem
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
