[OE-core] [PATCH] libepoxy: Use native python3

[Richard Purdie]

On Thu, 2015-07-23 at 17:15 -0600, Gary Thomas wrote:
> On 2015-07-23 17:06, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-07-23 at 17:00 -0600, Gary Thomas wrote:
> >> It's an old host (Fedora 13) that I am unable to upgrade, but it still
> >> works quite well.  I get around most of the Yocto/bitbake worries by
> >> using a Yocto-built meta-toolchain to fill in the blanks (correct make,
> >> python2, etc), but python3 is not part of the meta-toolchain :-(
> >
> > You could likely build a customised meta-toolchain which did contain
> > python3 though?
> 
> Do you know how I would make that happen?  For me, meta-toolchain is
> a black box - I know very little of the internals.

Personally, I'd probably use "buildtools-tarball" for this so I'd go and
edit the buildtools-tarball.bb file and add nativesdk-python3-modules to
it which should pull in the bulk of python3 (not sure if you'd need
nativesdk-python3-core too, I'd hope that would be automatic from the
other).

You prefer your meta-toolchain? Then set:
TOOLCHAIN_HOST_TASK_append = " nativesdk-python3-modules"
in local.conf and it should add python3 to all meta-toolchain builds.

> Question about policy: it seems that a good many "native" packages
> are built, many just to "level the playing field".   I just checked
> and one of my average builds has 148 native packages sitting there.
> For example, why build bison-native when my host's bison is even the
> same vintage and hence just as adequate?  Why then, draw the line
> over python3 in this one recipe?  (Just asking, I'll figure out how
> to fix this anyway)

The line is drawn over python. Bitbake is built with python (2 at the
moment, 3 in the future) and since we need python to run bitbake,
rebuilding it seems silly. Yes, we do need to build a python-native to
be able to build python (target) which is sad but such is the nature of
cross compiling. We therefore tend to assume the provided python(s) are
sane.

Cheers,

Richard