<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Richard Purdie <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 16:58 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:<br>
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 05:56:31PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:<br>
> > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Saul Wold <<a href="mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com">sgw@linux.intel.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > > On 06/05/2013 01:10 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:<br>
> > ><br>
> > >><br>
> > >><br>
> > >><br>
> > >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko <<a href="mailto:denis@denix.org">denis@denix.org</a><br>
> > >> <mailto:<a href="mailto:denis@denix.org">denis@denix.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 02:43:07PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:<br>
> > >> > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Nicolas Dechesne <<br>
> > >> > <a href="mailto:nicolas.dechesne@linaro.org">nicolas.dechesne@linaro.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:nicolas.dechesne@">nicolas.dechesne@</a>**<a href="http://linaro.org" target="_blank">linaro.org</a><<a href="mailto:nicolas.dechesne@linaro.org">nicolas.dechesne@linaro.org</a>><br>
> > >> >><br>
> > >><br>
> > >> wrote:<br>
> > >> ><br>
> > >> > ><br>
> > >> > ><br>
> > >> > ><br>
> > >> > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Saul Wold <<a href="mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com">sgw@linux.intel.com</a><br>
> > >> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com">sgw@linux.intel.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
> > >> > ><br>
> > >> > >> On 06/05/2013 10:12 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:<br>
> > >> > >><br>
> > >> > >>><br>
> > >> > >>><br>
> > >> > >>><br>
> > >> > >>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Saul Wold<br>
> > >> <<a href="mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com">sgw@linux.intel.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com">sgw@linux.intel.com</a>><br>
> > >> > >>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com">sgw@linux.intel.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com">sgw@linux.intel.com</a>>>><br>
> > >> wrote:<br>
> > >> > >>><br>
> > >> > >>> On 06/05/2013 09:32 AM, Nicolas Dechesne wrote:<br>
> > >> > >>><br>
> > >> > >>><br>
> > >> > >>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Saul Wold<br>
> > >> <<a href="mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com">sgw@linux.intel.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com">sgw@linux.intel.com</a>><br>
> > >> > >>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com">sgw@linux.intel.com</a> <mailto:<br>
> > >> <a href="mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com">sgw@linux.intel.com</a>>><br>
> > >> > >>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com">sgw@linux.intel.com</a><br>
> > >> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com">sgw@linux.intel.com</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com">sgw@linux.intel.com</a><br>
> > >> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com">sgw@linux.intel.com</a>>>>**><br>
> > >> > >>> wrote:<br>
> > >> > >>><br>
> > >> > >>> You could just directly put the nativesdk-libx11<br>
> > >> in place<br>
> > >> > >>> of the<br>
> > >> > >>> variable, no need to have the variable there.<br>
> > >> > >>><br>
> > >> > >>><br>
> > >> > >>> yes, that's what I had initially, but found it was<br>
> > >> less easy to<br>
> > >> > >>> read...<br>
> > >> > >>> with X11DEPENDS it's more 'obvious' that there is<br>
> > >> something<br>
> > >> > >>> special..<br>
> > >> > >>> that said, i can make the change if that's really<br>
> > >> needed.<br>
> > >> > >>><br>
> > >> > >>> We do use the X11DEPENDS elsewhere when there are multiple<br>
> > >> > >>> dependencies, but I also found cases where we just<br>
> > >> include the<br>
> > >> > >>> dependency directly in the test. I was trying pick a<br>
> > >> direction:<br>
> > >> > >>> single entry no X11DEPENDS, multiple entries use<br>
> > >> X11DEPENDS.<br>
> > >> > >>><br>
> > >> > >>> Comments, flames, ...<br>
> > >> > >>><br>
> > >> > >>><br>
> > >> > >>> Yes; I sent this patch in Febuary:<br>
> > >> > >>><br>
> > >> <a href="http://patchwork.openembedded." target="_blank">http://patchwork.openembedded.</a>****org/patch/44759/<http://**<br>
> > >> <a href="http://patchwork.openembedded.org/**patch/44759/" target="_blank">patchwork.openembedded.org/**patch/44759/</a><<a href="http://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/44759/" target="_blank">http://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/44759/</a>><br>
> > >> ><br>
> > >> > >>><br>
> > >> > >>> Please use this one instead of the recent one.<br>
> > >> > >>><br>
> > >> > >>><br>
> > >> > >> Well reading back on that, it looks like I was waiting for an<br>
> > >> > >> EXTRA_OECONF or related change to the autoconf scripts.<br>
> > >> > >><br>
> > >> > >> Sau!<br>
> > >> > ><br>
> > >> > ><br>
> > >> > > hmm. ok, sorry Otavio, i missed the other patch. I will check<br>
> > >> on my side<br>
> > >> > > too about EXTRA_OECONF.<br>
> > >> > ><br>
> > >> ><br>
> > >> > Nicolas, don't worry. It is normal to end redoing some stuff.<br>
> > >> ><br>
> > >> > Last time I checked it had no support in Qt build system; I am<br>
> > >> not sure if<br>
> > >> > it uses or not the host headers (in case they exist) but it needs<br>
> > >> testing<br>
> > >> > to be sure.<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> I can confirm that it does not link against host X11 when built w/o<br>
> > >> that<br>
> > >> dependency and nativesdk has no x11 libs/headers. As I previously<br>
> > >> mentioned,<br>
> > >> we've been using this fix for over 6 months on several releases built<br>
> > >> on<br>
> > >> different machines w/o problems...<br>
> > >><br>
> > >><br>
> > >> In this case the patch can be merged 'as is'.<br>
> > >><br>
> > >><br>
> > > I am still concerned about a floating dependency here, imagine the<br>
> > > following:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Build the toolchain with X11 enabled, nativesdk-libx11 is build, now<br>
> > > rebuild with X11 disabled, the dependency is gone, but the libraries and<br>
> > > headers still exist in the sysroot and thus the configure will still enable<br>
> > > x11 in qte, bad things happen.<br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
> > I expect different distro features to have different build dirs. No?<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > > We need to have a disable flag to autotools.<br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
> > The qmake based system does not provide this; so to support it, it will<br>
> > need to be a hack ...<br>
><br>
> I agree with Otavio here - seems like you are after a rare corner case here...<br>
<br>
</div></div>We need determinism in the builds. Yes in this case it might be hard to<br>
achieve but I do think we need to achieve it.<br>
<br>
So this patch isn't going in until we can avoid this option magically<br>
floating, sorry. I've said this before and I've not changed my mind.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>It is completely deterministic that it is *broken* for every one not using a DISTRO with X11; this is deterministic enough for me to justify it go in. As most of people didn't complain about this before, it is clear most use *x11* feature and thus this won't affect them.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>I see no point in delay it; complete determinism is better - sure - but a broken Qt toolchain for x11less systems does not improve it. </div><div> </div></div>-- <br>Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems<br>
<a href="http://www.ossystems.com.br" target="_blank">http://www.ossystems.com.br</a> <a href="http://projetos.ossystems.com.br" target="_blank">http://projetos.ossystems.com.br</a><br>Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750<br>
</div></div>