Hello, This might have been discussed before. I couldn't find a relevant thread, but if it is so, just link me to it.
Since thud, more specific since commit 9af0f1a46bbb6ad9ee8b35957251f4aa826b023f Author: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfi...@windriver.com> Date: Sat Aug 18 22:50:44 2018 -0400 kernel-devsrc: restructure for out of tree (and on target) module builds ... we switched from a recipe that was deploying the entire source code to one that provides mainly the kernel headers (but not only). This change broke people expectations of this recipe while the description is also confusing: "Development source linux kernel. When built, this recipe packages the \source of the preferred virtual/kernel provider and makes it available for full kernel \development or external module builds". If size is not a problem (which can be the case when you compile on a builder for example and deploy only a OOT kernel module through other means), the full kernel source was a painless experience where things like commit a9471601fedd1f5087304eaa5fd39b98ae220313 Author: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfi...@windriver.com> Date: Thu Aug 30 09:45:41 2018 -0400 kernel-devsrc: fix arm/arm64 target module build ... would not appear. I understand the size impact on target and for those cases, continuously maintaining this recipe with new files/resources needed from the kernel, makes sense. So my proposal is to have two recipes, for example kernel-devsrc and kernel-fullsrc (kernel-src etc.) so people can choose what they need/want deploying/using. Or even have another devsrc provider. I'm open to any implementation detail. I'd just want to have an option for a full kernel source recipe. Regards, -- Andrei Gherzan gpg: rsa4096/D4D94F67AD0E9640 | t: @agherzan -- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
