On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:53 AM Richard Purdie < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-06-18 at 19:25 -0400, Mark Asselstine wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 6:27 PM, Andreas Müller <schnitzeltony@gmail. > > com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:42 PM, Richard Purdie > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Off-Topic / FYI for me gmail considered your email spam > > > > > > > > Removing the libtool files became the project default a while ago > > > > (Jan > > > > 2017): > > > > > > > > meta/conf/distro/defaultsetup.conf:INHERIT_DISTRO ?= "debian > > > > devshell sstate license remove-libtool" > > > > > > > > so I suspect you're in the minority not using that now. > > > > > > Maybe true. But breaking builds consumes resources on many sides - > > > this thread is a good example > > > > > > > > http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/meta/conf/distro > > > > /defaultsetup.conf?id=3e2a47fdfceccd5f8832235b7a2df83076e84a98 > > > > > > > > > > The more I think about this: > > > > > > * Why is remove-libtool something a distro can override? If causing > > > trouble it can be deactivated recipe-wise. > > > > > > That was my feeling as well as we were having this discussion, > > without digging into the history it felt as if this should have been > > made core functionality and not optional, especially given the > > opportunity for recipes to opt out. At any rate I am about to send a > > commit to get things buildable for when the 'remove-libtool' distro > > feature is absent and as long as it remains optional I suppose all > > recipes should function with and without the feature. > > There are many different features which "distro maintainers" can turn > on/off which can break the builds. I was always reluctant to add the > libtool change but we reached the point where it simply no longer made > sense to keep those files around, they caused more problems than it was > worth effort for. > > Its not a setting I'd recommend anyone use now because as you're > finding, the .la handling metadata is bitrotting. As with many things > in the project, its "at your own risk and maintenance burden". Its not > a combination I have any plans to add tests for. > > The better solution would be to drop all the .la file FILES directives > and handle .la files in a similar way to the way we handle debug files > into -dbg packages. If anyone cares at this point. > Not worth the effort IMO > > Cheers, > > Richard > -- > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel > -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
