On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 01:48:31PM +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 02:18:30PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-07-24 at 17:22 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 02:52:45PM +0100, Burton, Ross wrote: > > > > On 24 July 2014 14:42, Martin Jansa <martin.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > +REQUIRED_DISTRO_FEATURES = "x11" > > > > > > > > Now I'm wondering why this is the solution. > > > > > > > > If you attempt to build e.g. gnome-desktop explicitly without the x11 > > > > distro feature you understandably get an error message, because > > > > gnome-desktop depends on libx11 which sanity checks the distro > > > > features. This seems correct. > > > > > > > > Presumably you're problem is that you're running world builds and > > > > they're producing errors on gnome-desktop because they can't satisfy a > > > > dependency on libx11. It seems that bubbling up the > > > > REQUIRED_DISTRO_FEATURES tests isn't the right thing to do here - why > > > > can't SkipPackage be handled specially, so if you do bitbake -k world > > > > and libx11 emits SkipPackage, anything that has unsatisfiable > > > > dependencies because of this is also skipped? > > > > > > We discussed this many months ago and IIRC the conclusion was that user > > > should explicitly say that he wants to skip the recipes which depend on > > > something skipped (so that he is aware of what he is missing). > > > > > > At that time there wasn't REQUIRED_DISTRO_FEATURES support, so I've > > > created huge list of PNBLACKLISTs to blacklist everything not available > > > in our setup - so I can do world builds without ERRORs at the beginning. > > > > > > REQUIRED_DISTRO_FEATURES seems to me like reasonable compromise, that's > > > why I've sent this patchset to replace small part of my huge blacklist. > > > > > > This is the list: > > > https://github.com/openwebos/meta-webos/blob/master/conf/distro/include/webos-recipe-blacklist-world.inc > > > > > > If someone has time to improve SkipPackage and we really want to skip > > > all depending packages, I would be glad to test such patch (because it > > > allows to easily drop all those blacklists for "depends-on-broken" > > > components) > > > > The question here is whether we want a system which calculates what it > > thinks is right or that we declare it. > > > > The risk is that if SkipPackage (now known as SkipRecipe) were to > > automatically "spread", you could in theory break the toolchain, have > > nothing buildable and "bitbake world" would return success. > > > > Effectively the -k option to bitbake already does the SkipPackage > > "spread" idea since bitbake just removes dependencies until it works. If > > does that in a fairly verbose way but it does so deliberately so you can > > see what is going on. > > > > The alternative is to declare what a given recipe supports and then we > > can know whether it should be skipped or not under a given circumstance. > > > > Personally, I'm leaning towards a more declarative approach where we > > specify what should and shouldn't be expected to work. I'm open to > > discussion on it though... > > I agree with more declarative approach. > > I don't mind maintaining PNBLACKLIST e.g. for components depending on > something we decided to blacklist ourselves in distro config. > > But for components like this, where we really know that they won't work > without X11 in DISTRO_FEATURES, I think bitbake should skip them > automatically (thanks to REQUIRED_DISTRO_FEATURES). It already > automatically skips all recipes in xorg-lib directory, why it shouldn't > skip other recipes living somewhere else?
Can we make some decision now? > > Cheers, > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > > -- > Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: martin.ja...@gmail.com -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: martin.ja...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
