On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 20:53 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: > On 8/10/17 6:56 PM, Martin Jansa wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 03:34:48PM -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: > > > On 8/10/17 3:18 PM, Martin Jansa wrote: > > > > -2 > > > > > > I agree that autoconf-archive should be in oe-core. But... > > > > No argument about that, it was already merged to oe-core, I was > > only commenting about the gnome-common change included in this > > commit.
The meta-oe patch is here: https://patchwork.openembedded.org/series/7995/# > Sorry, I missed the context.. ya if the gnome change is arch or board > specific that is wrong. There should be no reason for that. The patch itself doesn't change anything around that, autoconf-archive already was arch specific. Martin is right, because of that the gnome-common->autoconf-archive dependency can't be done as in the patch above. But what is the right fix? Is autoconf-archive really arch specific or can "inherit allarch" be added to it? If not, can we add it to SIGGEN_EXCLUDERECIPES_ABISAFE to allow the gnome-common->autoconf-archive dependency? That would also prevent rebuilding software when updating autoconf-archive, which may or may not be the right thing to do - I'm undecided myself. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
