On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Richard Purdie < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-08-17 at 10:33 +0200, Jacob Kroon wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Richard Purdie > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > [This is an RFC which depends on a patch to bitbake to > > operate] > > > > Currently, we have a mess of dependencies for pixbufcache and > > even then > > it breaks since they might be controlled by PACKAGECONFIG. > > > > Instead, this patch proposes an alternative approach where we > > allow > > "fixups" from a sceneQueueComplete() event at the end of the > > setscene > > process. We signal the need for these using simply stamp > > files. > > > > The one downside is that the processing code needs to be in a > > global > > event handler like base.bbclass rather than > > pixbufcache.bbclass but this > > is probably a price worth paying to avoid the dependency mess? > > > > Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > Instead of having the sstate_postinst() touch "needpixbuf", could we > > make it write out the actual script that needs to be executed ? > > > > Then base.bbclass could iterate over any scripts installed by any > > sstate_postinst() and execute them. At least this would better isolate > > the pixbuf-code to pixbufcache.bbclass, and make the snippet in > > base.bbclass more generic. > > It does become trickier to avoid races when writing out that script. > Touching the file is rather easy from a lock perspective :) > > How about prefixing the actual written out script with "${PN}-" ? That would prevent races writing the script. Downside would be that the pixbuf-cache update would be run multiple times.
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
