> On Feb 4, 2016, at 1:10 PM, Phil Blundell <p...@pbcl.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 13:01 -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:12 PM, Ricardo Neri
>>> <ricardo.neri-calde...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>> inherit autotools pkgconfig update-rc.d ptest
>>> RDEPENDS_${PN}-ptest += "make perl python"
>>> +RDEPENDS_${PN}-cache += "gzip findutils”
>>
>> are they individually packaged ipks even with busybox ?
>> if not then this fix is insufficient
>
> They don't have to be individually packaged, it would suffice for
> busybox to RPROVIDE them.yes thats what I was expecting to be ensured. > (But it doesn't, so I think you are correct > that the patch as it stands will break builds with busybox.) I never said it will break for that matter original patch is fine too its just redundantly bringing in packages when a system primarily using busybox for core utilities may be able to use busybox for, what I said was that it is insufficient.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
