On Monday 26 October 2015 10:15:49 Andrei Gherzan wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 08:08:29AM +0000, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > On Monday 26 October 2015 09:43:08 Jonathan Liu wrote:
> > > [Support #16]
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Liu <net...@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > recipes-qt/qt5/qtbase_%.bbappend | 6 ++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > > create mode 100644 recipes-qt/qt5/qtbase_%.bbappend
> > >
> > > diff --git a/recipes-qt/qt5/qtbase_%.bbappend
> > > b/recipes-qt/qt5/qtbase_%.bbappend new file mode 100644
> > > index 0000000..3e5e667
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/recipes-qt/qt5/qtbase_%.bbappend
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
> > > +do_configure_prepend_rpi() {
> > > + cat > ${S}/mkspecs/oe-device-extra.pri << 'EOF'
> > > +EGLFS_DEVICE_INTEGRATION = eglfs_brcm
> > > +QMAKE_LIBS_EGL = -lEGL -lGLESv2
> > > +EOF
> > > +}
> >
> > I'm wondering if this is a good idea or not. I appreciate the intention,
> > but does bbappending non-machine-specific recipes like this play well
> > when you have other machines enabled in the same distro?
>
> But this change will be applied only for _rpi. How is this affecting other
> machines?
If everything works such that the resulting packages get marked as machine-
specific and the package manager correctly installs them in preference to the
generic architecture packages on the machines in question, then there won't be
a massive problem (though the side-effect is probably that any recipes
depending on qtbase will also become machine-specific, that is possibly more of
an issue).
Cheers,
Paul
--
Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
--
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
