On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 13:38 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote: > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 11:09:47PM +0100, Martin Jansa wrote: > > * add separate variable for configuration options generated from > > PACKAGECONFIG setting, this helps other bbclasses and recipes > > to take advantage of PACKAGECONFIG mechanism, without including > > other options from EXTRA_OECONF > > * e.g. meta-qt5 recipes are abusing EXTRA_OECONF to get options > > from PACKAGECONFIG: > > EXTRA_QMAKEVARS_PRE += > > but with > > conf/distro/include/no-static-libs.inc > > it means getting --disable-static as invalid option inside > > EXTRA_QMAKEVARS_PRE as reported by Alexandre Belloni who tried > > to use poky with meta-qt5. > > * once we migrate all bbclasses and recipes to > > EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG > > we should also restrict EXTRA_OECONF append only to > > autotools.bbclass > > like I did for cmake.bbclass > > No comments? Should I resend without [RFC] tag? > > This is needed to fix couple components when > conf/distro/include/no-static-libs.inc is used.
I can see the need for it, I'm just not 100% sure I like the form of the patch. No one particular thing is doing that, just a general feeling of unease which I can't quite put into words :(. We continue to have a need to differentiate between "proper" autotools recipes and non-autotools recipes which would make this kind of issue easier. I guess I'm trying to weigh up whether we should consider something a bit more invasive to try and improve things and if we do that whether this patch helps or hinders that (it probably does help). I'm also not 100% convinced EXTRA_CONF_PACKAGECONFIG is the right name, but I can see how you got here and I'm not sure I have a better suggestion (PACKAGECONFIG_CONFPARAMS? _CONFARGS?) Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
