On 08.02.2012 19:41, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:03, Andreas Oberritter <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> There's no need to alter configure flags, because without x11,
>> libsm cannot be picked up accidentially. Because this just fixes
>> a missing dependency failure without x11, no PR bump is required
>> either.
>>
>
> I do prefer a clear configure option depending on if it is going to use or
> not libsm otherwise if user has built it, it is going to be taken.
Currently, there are two possibilities:
1.) x11 is in DISTRO_FEATURES
-> libsm is built, giflib is built with libsm
2.) x11 is not in DISTRO_FEATURES
-> giflib build is broken, because libsm does not exist in this
configuration
Therefore, the scenario you're describing cannot happen.
> Also,
> please PR bump in any case since it can help spot other possible failures
> that we'd not catch otherwise.
I already explained in the commit message, why a PR bump is not needed.
Can you please explain which other possible failures you're expecting,
so I can learn why my reasoning may be wrong?
This patch only fixes an unavailable build dependency at bitbake level,
nothing more.
Regards,
Andreas
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
