[OE-core] [PATCH 2/2] multiconfig: Enable multiconfig dependencies on oe-core

[Alejandro Enedino Hernandez Samaniego]

Hey Khem, Richard,


On 08/01/2018 10:44 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 4:59 AM Richard Purdie 
> <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org 
> <mailto:richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
>     On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 15:05 -0700, Alejandro Enedino Hernandez
>     Samaniego wrote:
>     > On 07/26/2018 08:36 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>     > >
>     > > On 7/25/18 9:05 AM, Alejandro Enedino Hernandez Samaniego wrote:
>     > > > This patch enables multiconfig dependencies (mcdepends) to be
>     > > > used on
>     > > > recipes using the following format:
>     > > >
>     > > > task[mcdepends] = "multiconfig:FROM-MC:TO-MC:PN:task-to-depend-
>     > > > on"
>     > > >
>     > > > For the sake of simplicity consider the following example:
>     > > >
>     > > > Assuming we have set up multiconfig builds, one for qemux86 and
>     > > > one for
>     > > > qemuarm, named x86 and arm respectively.
>     > > >
>     > > > Adding the following line to an image recipe (core-image-sato):
>     > > > do_image[mcdepends] = "multiconfig:x86:arm:core-image-
>     > > > minimal:do_rootfs"
>     > > >
>     > >
>     > > Do we really need to add multiconfig to keyword namespace ? can we
>     > > deduce this from "arch1:arch2:..."
>     >
>     > Bitbake already uses this and I believed adopting it would make it
>     > easier for the user to understand its usage.
>     >
>     > For example, since the multiconfig names are also provided during
>     > setup, if you assume that someone set up the build and a different
>     > user is going through the recipe, arch1:arch2 wouldn't mean a
>     lot for
>     > that user because they may not map 1:1 to MACHINE names.
>
>     It is consistent with the rest of the system. I'm still torn on
>     whether
>     we should shorten "multiconfig:" to "mc:" but we need to be
>     consistent.
>
>
> Given a choice I would suggest for using multiconfig for lesser chance 
> of conflicts
I also agree here that its better to use multiconfig.
>
>
>     > > secondy, this need to be well documented, with examples for users
>     >
>     > I agree we could add more documentation to it, where do you
>     think it
>     > should go?
>
>     I'm going to queue the patches for testing in -next, they look good to
>     me just reading the patches.
>
>     Could you start to work with Scott (cc'd) to get this new dependency
>     type listed in the bitbake manual and anywhere else it needs to be
>     documented?
>
Sure, I'll sync with Scott

Thanks!,

Alejandro
>
>
>     Its great to see this finally working!
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     Richard
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20180801/2ac0caed/attachment-0002.html>