On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Burton, Ross <ross.bur...@intel.com> wrote:
> On 25 February 2014 05:46, Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> b) We introduce an "autotools2" class and have recipes inherit that.
>>> This version would default to separate builddirs. It does mean change to
>>> all the "good" recipes rather than the broken ones though and hence a
>>> fair bit of churn.
>>
>> probably a better migration path can happen over time. may be we can raname
>> existing autotools.bbclass to autotoolsold and have autotools.bbclass
>> default to S != B
>> that way the recipes which break can inherit autotoolsold and can have quick
>> fix
>> then we can slowly remove inheriting autotoolsold and finally remove
>> the class itself.
>
> I really don't see the point of this churn. If autotools defaults to
> B!=S then the recipe is going to need changing anyway, and adding
> B=${S} in the recipe is far lower impact than having a fork of
> autotools.bbclass
OK yes.
that has one change and would need to remain (and be
> maintained) for several release cycles.
>
> Ross
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
