[OE-core] [PATCH 3/7] task-core-tools: Divide it into 3 recipes

[Paul Eggleton]

On Tuesday 24 January 2012 17:26:42 Khem Raj wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Saul Wold <sgw at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On 01/24/2012 09:42 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> >> task-core-tools-debug, task-core-tools-profile, task-core-tools-testapps
> >> otherwise if we choose one through PACKAGE_GROUPS all packages
> >> are built since they are in same recipe.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj<raj.khem at gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >>  .../conf/distro/include/distro_tracking_fields.inc |   26 +++++--
> >>  meta/conf/multilib.conf                            |    4 +-
> >>  meta/recipes-core/tasks/task-core-tools-debug.bb   |   26 ++++++
> >>  ...sk-core-tools.bb =>  task-core-tools-profile.bb} |   81
> >> ++++++--------------
> >>  .../recipes-core/tasks/task-core-tools-testapps.bb |   46 +++++++++++
> >>  5 files changed, 119 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-)
> >>  create mode 100644 meta/recipes-core/tasks/task-core-tools-debug.bb
> >>  rename meta/recipes-core/tasks/{task-core-tools.bb =>
> >>  task-core-tools-profile.bb} (48%)
> > 
> > This breaks meta-yocto which has a task-core-tools.bbappend
> 
> that bbappend is redundant. You should just delete it anyway from meta-yocto

Amusingly I was thinking "who the heck put that in there?" and, wouldn't you 
know it, it turned out to be me... I think at the time I was concerned only 
with moving pieces out of OE-Core that were hardware-specific without making 
any judgements about whether they were worthwhile or not.

I'd have to defer to someone who knows more about these tools, but if the 
concern is that systemtap and lttng-ust might not be suitable for all 
machines, we could simply use RRECOMMENDS in OE-Core and then set 
COMPATIBLE_MACHINE for them in BSPs.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre