Fair enough, thanks for the clarification! On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:08 AM Mariano Lopez < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 03/24/2016 12:04 PM, Christopher Larson wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 8:26 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Mariano Lopez <[email protected]> > > >> + # We just archive gcc-source for all the gcc related recipes >> + if d.getVar('BPN', True) in ['gcc', 'libgcc'] \ >> + and not pn.startswith('gcc-source'): >> + bb.debug(1, 'archiver: %s is excluded, covered by gcc-source' % >> pn) >> + return >> > > Hmm, I wonder if it'd be possible to make this more generic, check for > work-shared or something. > > > I was thinking the same when writing the patch, but it seems gcc is more > of a corner case. The only two recipes that use work-shared are gcc and the > kernel, the kernel case it's already covered checking for the class > "kernel-yocto". In case of gcc we can't check for a class, we would need > for work-shared and gcc, and that would be the almost the same comparison > as is in the patch. > > > Mariano >
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
