[OE-core] [PATCH] gcc-cross-canadian: Add inhibit of split as well was Re: [oe-core][PATCH 1/1] package.bbclass: decouple splitting and stripping

[Mark Hatle]

On 3/30/15 4:45 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 16:08 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
>> On 3/18/15 12:44 PM, Slater, Joseph wrote:
>>> I just found out that this patch will break qa for ltp packaging.  The ltp recipe
>>> inhibits stripping which used to inhibit splitting.  If splitting is enabled,
>>> there are several .debug directories in places packages.bbclass doesn't look, so
>>> they wind up in ltp, not ltp-dbg.
>>>
>>> It's tempting just to inhibit splitting since that was never really done before, anyhow,
>>> but I suppose that's not the right way to fix it.
>>
>> In addition to ltp, I recently found this breaks gcc-cross-canadian, below is a
>> patch that should probably be applied even if this one does not make it in.
>>
>>
>> gcc-cross-canadian: Add inhibit of split as well
>>
>> With the recent change to allow strip and split of packages to be controlled
>> seperately, gcc-cross-canadian will sometimes fail to build properly.  So in
>> addition to the existing inhibit strip, we also want to inhibit split.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mark Hatle <mark.hatle at windriver.com>
>> ---
>>  meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-cross-canadian.inc | 1 +
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-cross-canadian.inc
>> b/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-cross-canadian.inc
>> index 195b465..ad4b08f 100644
>> --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-cross-canadian.inc
>> +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-cross-canadian.inc
>> @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ do_compile () {
>>  }
>>
>>  INHIBIT_PACKAGE_STRIP = "1"
>> +INHIBIT_PACKAGE_DEBUG_SPLIT = "1"
>>
>>  # Having anything auto depending on gcc-cross-sdk is a really bad idea...
>>  EXCLUDE_FROM_SHLIBS = "1"
> 
> Not sure which revision of fido or master this against but: 
> 
> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/?id=92739edc9da0dea10ccc9d153226cacd6a18ee33
> 
> i.e. we fixed this the other way...

You are right.. I thought I was in a different directory, but I was back on a
pull from Feb 20th.  Sorry for the confusion.

--Mark

> Cheers,
> 
> Richard
>