On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 21:04 +0000, Mike Crowe wrote: > On Tuesday 02 February 2016 at 16:01:14 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 14:49 +0000, Mike Crowe wrote: > > > bitbake.conf currently contains: > > > > > > EXTRA_OEMAKE = "-e MAKEFLAGS=" > > > > > > Back in November[1] I submitted a patch that allowed this default > > > value to be overridden without affecting anything else that was > > > appended to it. I received feedback that the default value was no > > > longer useful and that it would be good to get rid of it. > > > > > > So, this patch series fixes the two recipes that still appear to > > > be > > > relying on the previous default and then makes the default > > > EXTRA_OEMAKE = "". After these changes core-image-sato builds > > > successfully for me (although I have not run it.) > > > > > > Mike. > > > > > > [1] > > > http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2015-No > > > vember/112393.html > > > > This is a pretty major change and we likely need a bit more of an > > idea > > of impact. > > I agree. > > > Which architectures did you test? Often, x86 is a bad choice here > > and > > we'd need something cross (arm/mips/ppc) to ensure it really is > > doing > > the right things. We also need to assess a bit more than just sato. > > We > > can run this up on the autobuilder and see what happens. > > I've compile-tested qemux86 and qemuarm for core-image-sato. qemumips > is > building now. > > We've been running with the previous version of the patch with our > code for > a while but now I look more closely that solution didn't have > anywhere near > as wide an impact so I'll switch us over to using these patches. That > will > runtime-test a few real mips and arm targets (and even x86 and x86-64 > to a > limited extent) but only with our customised set of packages.
Thanks. Please do mention what tests have passed/failed just so I can build some idea of the risk of the patch and decide if/as/when the right time to merge it is. > > A post to the architecture list is probably needed so everyone > > knows > > this is happening (or at least being considered). > > I'll do that once I've finished this round of testing. Would it be > best to > just post a general overview or the complete patch series? The general overview and main patch is fine. I will likely merge any fixups like the two in this series as they become available since they don't have an adverse affect as far as I can tell. > > I do worry how much of meta-oe may be affected by this. > > We don't use meta-oe. I could have a look at trying some builds over > the > weekend. Luckily any breakage will be easy to fix, but that doesn't > really > help if hundreds of packages are affected! Right, I really just need an idea of whether its going to cause problems and a rough idea of scale. I will run this on the Yocto Project autobuilder but we're pushed for bandwidth at the moment so it may not be until the weekend. Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
