On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:14 PM, Mark Asselstine <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday, June 18, 2018 4:10:12 PM EDT Andreas Müller wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 8:55 PM, Mark Hatle <[email protected]> > wrote: >> > On 6/18/18 1:47 PM, Khem Raj wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:09 AM Mark Asselstine >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Khem Raj <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:54 AM Mark Hatle <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >>>>> On 6/18/18 12:50 PM, Khem Raj wrote: >> >>>>>> Hi Mark >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> It seems your distro is not inheriting it globally. Here I have >> >>>>>> INHERIT_DISTRO ?= "debian devshell sstate license remove-libtool" >> >>>>> >> >>>>> So is remove-libtool a recipe or a distro option? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I'm asking because doing this half-way is causing a lot of confusion. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> If it's a distro option, then the recipes should work without it being >> >>>>> set. If it's a recipe option, then the recipes that need it should >> >>>>> use it. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Right now it doesn't seem to be working with these recipes because >> >>>>> they don't package the .la files UNLESS it's enabled. So the fix is >> >>>>> either to package them (by default) or inherit the remove-libtool. >> >>>> >> >>>> since we make it as part of meta/conf/distro/defaultsetup.conf >> >>>> its a default policy, its perfectly fine for a distro to disregard >> >>>> that >> >>>> however, then you fall into a non-default case. I am willing to accept >> >>>> per recipe patches but I would recommend to consider it as a distro >> >>>> feature for your distro. >> >>> >> >>> Andreas, >> >>> >> >>> Can you revert your "various classes recipes: Remove FILES entries for >> >>> dbg/dev packages" then? If this is a distro feature then these recipes >> >>> need to build without the QA issue and without the remove-libtool >> >>> distro feature being set. >> >> I prefer not to apply the patch (Or Khem shall I send a revert?). It >> is not a good idea to break builds for distros not following a >> recommendation. Anyway the mentioned patch was a cleanup: It is not >> worth to break things by a minor cleanup. > > The patch doesn't just cleanup .la but also some .debug files, so I suppose it > doesn't have to be a full revert. I can put together something which just gets > things going with a return to including .la files in FILES if people would > prefer that approach. > > MarkA > Would be great if you could do that - thanks in advance
Andreas -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
