On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 03:18:50PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: > > Op 30 okt. 2014, om 14:28 heeft Richard Purdie > <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> het volgende geschreven: > > > On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 14:20 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote: > >> 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? > > > > Well, I think there was an implied outcome of this: > > > > a) We don't want to automatically do things, we want something > > declarative > > > > b) We therefore need to go and add REQUIRED_DISTRO_FEATURES = "x11" to > > some further places. > > > > As such, I'll take patches. > > > > Was that what other people understood? > > That's how I read it and FWIW, I agree.
ping for Ross -- 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
