On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 14:44 -0700, Andre McCurdy wrote: >> Currently the openssl 1.0 recipe defines a dependency on >> hostperl-runtime-native and the openssl 1.1 recipe does not. Both run >> "perl ./Configure ..." as part of do_configure(). >> >> Since hostperl-runtime-native is included in ASSUME_PROVIDED, is it >> really useful for the openssl 1.0 recipe to list it in DEPENDS? >> >> ie is the openssl 1.0 recipe being unnecessarily complex or is the >> openssl 1.1 recipe being too simplistic? > > It is useful for things to list their dependencies and we did have an > effort to actually list things out so we know ASSUME_PROVIDED is > correct. This means we can spot areas we might be able to trim back > dependencies (amongst other reasons). > > With the introduction of HOSTTOOLS, its perhaps less needed than it was > but in principle it is still useful to know which things need a given > item, particularly where its more unusual. I'd still be interested in > trying to cut back HOSTTOOLS a bit more. > > The 1.1 recipe was pretty heavily cut back, probably too much so based > on some of the patches we've been getting...
Thanks. Is there an obvious reason why both recipes shouldn't be using perl-native rather than hostperl-runtime-native? Building with perl-native seems to work fine. -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
