[OE-core] [PATCH 0/3] Remove unhelpful default value of EXTRA_OEMAKE

[Khem Raj]

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Mike Crowe <mac at mcrowe.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 14:49 +0000, Mike Crowe wrote:
>> > > > [snip] Set EXTRA_OEMAKE = "" in bitbake.conf
>
> On Tuesday 02 February 2016 at 16:01:14 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> > > Which architectures did you test? Often, x86 is a bad choice here and
>> > > we'd need something cross (arm/mips/ppc) to ensure it really is doing
>> > > the right things. We also need to assess a bit more than just sato.
>> > > We can run this up on the autobuilder and see what happens.
>
> On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 21:04 +0000, Mike Crowe wrote:
>> > I've compile-tested qemux86 and qemuarm for core-image-sato. qemumips
>> > is building now.
>
> Since then I've collected enough patches to make "bitbake world" build
> successfully for qemux86, qemuarm, qemuppc and qemumips. qemux86-64 is
> building now. The recipes that needed fixing to explicitly set
> EXTRA_OEMAKE = "-e MAKEFLAGS=" were:
>
>   meta/recipes-bsp/apmd/apmd_3.2.2-15.bb
>   meta/recipes-bsp/libacpi/libacpi_0.2.bb
>   meta/recipes-bsp/pciutils/pciutils_3.4.1.bb
>   meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl.inc
>   meta/recipes-devtools/dmidecode/dmidecode_3.0.bb
>   meta/recipes-devtools/fdisk/gptfdisk_1.0.1.bb
>   meta/recipes-devtools/perl/perl-native_5.22.1.bb
>   meta/recipes-devtools/perl/perl_5.22.1.bb
>   meta/recipes-extended/ed/ed_1.9.bb
>   meta/recipes-extended/iputils/iputils_s20151218.bb
>   meta/recipes-extended/pigz/pigz.inc
>   meta/recipes-extended/stat/stat_3.3.bb
>   meta/recipes-extended/sysklogd/sysklogd.inc
>   meta/recipes-extended/unzip/unzip_6.0.bb
>   meta/recipes-gnome/gtk-theme-torturer/gtk-theme-torturer_git.bb
>   meta/recipes-support/ptest-runner/ptest-runner_2.0.bb
>
> I will submit patches for these shortly.

then there are other layers besides OE-Core where this will be needed.
so phase it right so it doesnt cause land slide work for other layers

>
>> > We've been running with the previous version of the patch with our code
>> > for a while but now I look more closely that solution didn't have
>> > anywhere near as wide an impact so I'll switch us over to using these
>> > patches. That will runtime-test a few real mips and arm targets (and
>> > even x86 and x86-64 to a limited extent) but only with our customised
>> > set of packages.
>
> On Tuesday 02 February 2016 at 22:41:25 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> Thanks. Please do mention what tests have passed/failed just so I can
>> build some idea of the risk of the patch and decide if/as/when the
>> right time to merge it is.
>
> I've not yet done any more runtime tests. I hope to get the change into our
> tree tonight so everything gets rebuilt with it over the weekend and I can
> test next week.
>
>> > > A post to the architecture list is probably needed so everyone knows
>> > > this is happening (or at least being considered).
>
> I hope to send such a post later today.
>
> Mike.
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core