2010/11/3 Khem Raj <[email protected]>: > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Frans Meulenbroeks > <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2010/11/3 Khem Raj <[email protected]>: >>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Frans Meulenbroeks >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> 2010/11/3 Khem Raj <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> yes a more detailed solution is better. you have to go through the >>>>> configure of every >>>>> package and understand the behavior then act upon. As I said before >>>>> its a tedious task >>>>> >>>> I'm well aware of this. That is also why in the infrastructure thread >>>> I suggested using automated testing to find misbehaving packages. >>>> >>>> Btw there are 355 .inc files that contain the word autotools and 1899 .bb >>>> files. >>>> Of course there are lots of dups in there. >>>> And maybe for the base recipes we can convince the yocto people that >>>> this is a serious QA issue (and they have some people employed to work >>>> on this if I understood properly). >>>> >>> >>> numbers means not so much when it comes down to this. I don't know if >>> any distribution that even does that >>> so I take comfort in everyone being wrong. >>> >> >> I agree that numbers don't mean that much. Just wanted to give an >> indication of the possible effort needed. >> Also no idea how debian does this. > > Does it do it in first place ?
I peeked briefly at the sources. Debian seems to resolve the problem by going for the max dependencies so autotools can pick up everything. E.g. for gphoto2, lenny has a depends on both libexif and libreadline (see http://packages.debian.org/lenny/gphoto2) So basically they go for the max config. We could do the same. Then again for deeply embedded systems it might be desirable to allow more finegrained tuning. (did I hear someone say USE flags ? ) Enjoy! Frans _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
