On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 11:03 +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote: > > The idea is quite simple. Rather than having a copy of the gcc > > source for each recipe variant (-cross-initial, -cross, > > -crosssdk-initial, -crosssdk, -cross-canadian etc.) we have a single > > copy of the source. > > >We tried an older shared stamp scheme which was fragile and prone to > >weird failures. Instead we created the gcc-source recipe which is > >responsible for the fetch/unpack/patch/preconfigure and then each > >recipe can work off the shared source (and has >a dependency on > >gcc-source). > > Thank you Richard for explaining this! It helps greatly! > > >For Elena's use case, I therefore think it might be better to analyse > >the shared source once and not in the case of each recipe (e.g. if > >SRC_URI is empty). > > I am really not sure how to do it apart from hardcoding a check inside > the class that if the recipe happens to be gcc related, run the > analysis only once for gcc-source and do not run it for other related > packages. > My task is currently run for every recipe uniformly and it would be > not that elegant to have this hardcoding part. Is there a better way of > handling it?
>You could test if SRC_URI is empty in your code? >Then all we'd need to do is ensure that SRC_URI was empty for the gcc recipes >except for gcc-source? Yes, I think this would work. There is already a check: https://github.com/01org/meta-security-isafw/blob/master/classes/isafw.bbclass#L39 but currently it does return "True" for things like libgcc and the task fails since there are no actual sources. Best Regards, Elena.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
