[OE-core] [PATCH 1/5] kernel.bbclass: blacklist 'perf-dbg' as well for the modules metapackage

[Bruce Ashfield]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Koen Kooi <koen at dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>
> Op 22 sep. 2011, om 15:28 heeft Bruce Ashfield het volgende geschreven:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Koen Kooi <koen at dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Op 22 sep. 2011, om 15:00 heeft Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov het volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>>> On 09/22/2011 04:35 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Op 22 sep. 2011, om 14:25 heeft Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov het volgende geschreven:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 09/18/2011 02:23 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>>>>> I have sent this in July and it was nacked. See at
>>>>>>> https://github.com/OSSystems/oe-core/commit/5c53cbf951a11ed92fb2ad0837991db256c11489
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Answering the original question by Saul:
>>>>>> A possible better question is why perf-dbg is getting generated and what's in it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> perf and perf-dbg are generated to contain perf tool if it's not directly enabled (AFAIK), but you can compile it by running make in tools/perf. It has some additional depends (like binutils-dev, elfutils-dev, news-dev, etc., so it's not enabled by default. Probably we should enable it though.
>>>>>
>>>>> the oe core kernel.bbclass builds perf by default
>>>>
>>>> according to kernel.bbclass: "perf must be enabled in individual kernel recipes"
>>>
>>> And pretty much everything uses recipes-kernel/linux/linux-tools.inc, which enables it. I had to add do_compile_perf() { : } to my old kernel recipes that have a broken perf, so it's opt-out, not opt-in.
>>
>> We can always flip this around if required. When I initially did the kernel
>> tree based builds for perf it was right in a specific kernel recipe, and then
>> pulled it out into linux-tools.inc for easier reuse it was the intention that
>> just including/requiring that .inc file would trigger a build of perf.
>
>
> I'm not complaining about perf being built, I'm complaining that the patch is held up on a question why perf-dbg is getting built. If 'perf' is in the blacklist, 'perf-dbg' should be in as well. If 'perf-dbg' isn't allowed in, take out 'perf' as well, since they are a matched pair.

Aha. Yes, I see that now. I'm generally quite bad at packaging so I sometimes
need to be pointed right at something :)

As for getting it in or out of the tree, I'm only one voice, but I
don't see a downside
to this being on the blacklist as well.

Cheers,

Bruce

> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>



-- 
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end"