[OE-core] [PATCH 06/24] gobject-introspection.bbclass: add a class that enables gobject introspection

[Martin Jansa]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:15:09AM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-03-10 at 01:09 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:52:20AM +0100, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> > > Hello Alexander,
> > > 
> > > On 09.03.2016 16:01, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <
> > > > alexander.kanavin at linux.intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  meta/classes/gobject-introspection.bbclass | 39
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
> > > >  create mode 100644 meta/classes/gobject-introspection.bbclass
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/meta/classes/gobject-introspection.bbclass
> > > > b/meta/classes/gobject-introspection.bbclass
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 0000000..ef51629
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/meta/classes/gobject-introspection.bbclass
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
> > > > +# Inherit this class in recipes to enable building their
> > > > introspection files
> > > > +
> > > > +# This allows disabling introspection support in recipes
> > > > +# (and therefore avoiding the use of qemu)
> > > > +# if gobject-introspection-data is omitted from DISTRO_FEATURES
> > > > and MACHINE_FEATURES.
> > > > +EXTRA_OECONF_prepend = "${@bb.utils.contains('COMBINED_FEATURES'
> > > > , 'gobject-introspection-data', '--enable-introspection', '-
> > > > -disable-introspection', d)} "
> > > 
> > > testing only DISTRO_FEATURES would be better. If MACHINE_FEATURES
]> > > gets
> > > tested, even though indirectly, I'd expect every recipe inheriting
> > > this
> > > class to switch to MACHINE_ARCH implicitly.
> > 
> > I think the idea was to prevent using qemu for MACHINEs without
> > support
> > in qemu. But I fully agree that causing all recipes which inherit
> > this
> > bbclass effectively MACHINE_ARCH is even worse.
> > 
> > DISTRO needs to make sure that all supported MACHINEs have support in
> > qemu or disable introspection for all of them.
> 
> Remember that bitbake has special knowledge of bb.utils.contains() and
> is clever enough to make the checksums depend on "gobject-introspection
> -data" being present or not and not the actual complete value.

But then the same TUNE_PKGARCH package created for 2 MACHINEs where one
has gobject-introspection-data in MACHINE_FEATURES and the second has
not, will still use different EXTRA_OECONF value.

So it will be overwriting the same package in same architecture with and
without introspection enabled, because on which MACHINE was built last.
Which is even worse than admitting that this is fscked combination and
turning such recipe and all depending on it to MACHINE_ARCH so that it
at leasts keeps the introspection enabled or disabled consistently.

On the other hand we can expect that if the DEFAULTTUNE has support in
qemu for MACHINE1, then MACHINE2 should be supported as well and this
combination is probably just overlook when setting MACHINE_FEATURES.

> So we can get the best of both worlds here, you can disable g-i on a
> per machine basis yet still enable at the distro level. Recipes don't
> become machine specific.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Richard
> 

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20160310/d1938913/attachment-0002.sig>