[OE-core] [PATCH 04/10] gtk.inc: add feature based on directfb

[Koen Kooi]

Op 8 dec. 2011, om 22:59 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:

> On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 17:12 +0000, Phil Blundell wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 16:55 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> The question is whether it makes sense to have directfb and X based gtk
>>> in the same builds and package feeds or not. I can see that it might be
>>> desired and that it likely is possible.
>> 
>> This is true, though there's nothing to stop a distro that particularly
>> wants this from inventing their own stub recipes which just set
>> PACKAGECONFIG appropriately and then require the generic version.  So
>> it's really just a question of what we want to be the default in
>> oe-core.
>> 
>> Also note that, although you can parallel install multiple versions of
>> the gtk+ runtime on the target system, if you want the build system to
>> be deterministic then (in the absence of per-recipe sysroot
>> construction) you need some way to decide which one gets to provide the
>> gtk+-2.0.pc that other recipes will build against.  (The different
>> targets have different library sonames so you can't just swap them out
>> at run time: a given binary will remain coupled to the particular Gtk
>> variant that it was compiled against.)  And if the two variants could
>> conceivably be different versions of GTK then you also need a way to
>> deconflict ${includedir}/gtk-2.0.  
>> 
>> So it isn't quite as simple as just having the two recipes, there is a
>> bit of extra policy involved as well.  And of course there would be all
>> the normal overhead in terms of parse time, memory footprint and
>> maintenance burden associated with having more recipes.  
> 
> This is the key detail I was missing. I thought they just might have
> been a drop in replacement.
> 
> That isn't the case so this makes the choice easier, I think separate
> recipes don't make sense based on this.
> 
>> So, in light of all the above plus the fact that everything is different
>> with Gtk+3 anyway, my preference for supporting directfb on gtk+2 in
>> oe-core would be to use PACKAGECONFIG and not have separate recipe
>> files.
> 
> Agreed, given the above.

So to be safe and give other directfb implementations a change, can this PACKAGECONFIG option be named 'gtk-directfb' in DISTRO_FEATURES?


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 163 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20111209/5b96aec9/attachment-0002.sig>