On Wed 2016-08-03 @ 09:39:59 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Trevor Woerner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon 2016-08-01 @ 03:08:36 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
> > > On 1 August 2016 at 15:07, Bruce Ashfield <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Not a large dependency, but it does bring to mind the question if this
> > > > could be conditional on the type of image being built ? via distro
> > > > feature, some other mechanism ?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Exactly this: image building adds dependencies automatically based on
> > what
> > > is actually being used, so can the kernel do this too?
> >
> > The way the build knows which image was built is to build the kernel then
> > look
> > in the output directory to see what extension was given to the artifact.
> > iow,
> > it only discovers the dependency partway through the build; it doesn't know
> > the dependency when the build starts.
> >
> > Either bitbake will have to put together the kernel's config at the start
> > of
> > the build, then parse through it to try to determine which kernel will be
> > built, or we need some sort of mechanism that allows us to add dependencies
> > partway through a build, or we can add (yet another) build variable and
> > hope
> > people are able to keep it in sync.
> >
> >
> I'm on vacation for the next two weeks, so sorry for the slow reply.
np enjoy! "'tis the season" :-)
>
> Wouldn't something like PACKAGECONFIG work here ? Something automatic
> is going to be complex (like you describe), but something like this would
> be an
> easy way for a BSP (or other) layer to bbappend the kernel and add this as
> a dependency.
>
> ... but then again, I suppose they could currently just bbappend the kernel
> recipe
> and add it directly to the DEPENDS.
I've proposed a change to the kernel.bbclass to add the lzop-native DEPENDS to
the existing
DEPENDS += "virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}binutils
virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}gcc kmod-native depmodwrapper-cross bc-native"
because it's in this file that the lzop program is being called.
It seems as though your suggestions are discussing changes to a recipe (?)
which is fine, I'll propose a patch to the BSP-in-question's kernel recipe.
>
> >
> > ...or we could just add lzop-native as a static dependency in the
> > off-chance that
> > it's needed.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee
> at its end"
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
