On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 11:27 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: > Op 9 nov. 2011, om 10:37 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: > > > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 10:27 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: > >> Op 9 nov. 2011, om 01:53 heeft Joshua Lock het volgende geschreven: > >> > >>> This patch pulls in the gnome related classes from oe-core which > >>> adds extra packaging rules and functionality whilst modularising things > >>> so that one can get a subset of gnome functionality without adding a lot > >>> of extra dependencies. > >>> > >>> These aren't an exact copy of the classes from meta-openembedded, notable > >>> differences are: > >>> * gnome.bbclass - I dropped the BBCLASSEXTEND > >> > >> It looks that will break a number of things in meta-oe, why was it dropped? > > > > Unconditionally BBCLASSEXTENDing everything gnome is a great way to hack > > around build issues and create a convoluted dependency mess that isn't > > really required. I'd much rather we try and minimise the amount of > > -native dependencies to those actually needed. > > > > Comparing our builds against other systems its becoming clear our > > convoluted dependency trees are one of the areas we don't do as well and > > it hurts performance :(. > > The list of -native needed in meta-gnome: > > bison-native > cairo-native > docbook-utils-native > flex-native > gconf-native > gdk-pixbuf-native > glib-2.0-native > gnome-doc-utils-native > gobject-introspection-native > gtk-doc-native > icon-naming-utils-native > intltool-native > libffi-native > libidl-native > libxml-parser-perl-native > orbit2-native > pango-native > perl-native > popt-native > python-native
Many of which are not gnome bbclass derived recipes. I therefore think it makes sense to put the BBCLASSEXTEND in the recipes where its needed and not the core class... Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
