On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 21:55 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: > Op 14 nov. 2011, om 21:39 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: > > On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 20:17 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: > >> I think splitting distccmon-gnome into a seperate recipe is a better idea. > > > > I think that makes sense in some cases but I'd hate for it to become the > > default approach for issues like this as the duplication of code, > > parsing and build time etc. grate on me. Do we really need separate > > recipes? > > I think for this case, yes. And I'll happily trade needing extra > buildtime for not needing USEFLAGS. > The proposals for alternative recipes for the different combinations got voted down and PACKAGECONFIG was the preferred solution. I can't say I personally like everything about the outcome. I do however understand why we've ended up in that position and don't intend to undermine the usefulness of it.
> > I'll probably take this patch as it improves the situation IMO (and > is > > easy to change the configuration from a distro config if anyone does > > have an issue with it being disabled). > > This patch changes the default behaviour in a way that distros need to > update their configs in order to keep the status quo. I know I use > distccmon-gnome on my boards, but will I remember 2 months from now > that this patch went in? I asked this before in a different context, > but I'll ask again: do you expect distro maintainers to vet each and > every commit that goes into OE-core to find out when default got > (silently) changed? > > USEFLAGS should be a last resort when having seperate recipes doesn't > work out, not a default cure. The discussion and decision went against this, rightly or wrongly PACKAGECONFIG is here and we should start to use it. In some cases it will help you a lot, in others it will cause you a bit more work. Such is life. However I do agree the defaults should be backwards compatible so I'm going to ask Paul to resubmit with a default value that matches the original recipe, probably something like: PACKAGECONFIG ??= "${@base_contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'directfb', 'directfb', '', d)} \ ${@base_contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'x11', 'x11', '', d)} although we could/should probably have some kind of "HAVEGTK" macro type variable defined to help avoid some of this ugliness. Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core