<div dir="ltr"><div>Seems to cause following QA issue for DISTROs which don't inherit remove-libtool.bbclass</div><div><br></div><div>ERROR: gcc-runtime-6.3.0-r0 do_package: QA Issue: gcc-runtime: Files/directories were installed but not shipped in any package:</div><div> /usr/lib/<a href="http://libmpxwrappers.la">libmpxwrappers.la</a></div><div>Please set FILES such that these items are packaged. Alternatively if they are unneeded, avoid installing them or delete them within do_install.</div><div>gcc-runtime: 1 installed and not shipped files. [installed-vs-shipped]</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Khem Raj <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:raj.khem@gmail.com" target="_blank">raj.khem@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Richard Purdie<br>
<<a href="mailto:richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org">richard.purdie@<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 14:58 -0800, Khem Raj wrote:<br>
>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Burton, Ross <<a href="mailto:ross.burton@intel.com">ross.burton@intel.com</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > On 3 March 2017 at 21:39, Khem Raj <<a href="mailto:raj.khem@gmail.com">raj.khem@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > ><br>
>> > > > Enabling building the Intel Memory Protection Extension library<br>
>> > > > for x86.<br>
>> > > ><br>
>> > > hope this works on amd chips as well ?<br>
>> ><br>
>> > <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_MPX" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<wbr>Intel_MPX</a><br>
>> ><br>
>> > It depends on new instructions, so you'll have to ask AMD. :)<br>
>> OK if its not so then perhaps a bbappend in meta-intel is more<br>
>> appropriate.<br>
><br>
> Well, its part of gcc, not something meta-intel is patching in and its<br>
> a standard which other arches can implement, maybe in their own library<br>
> so I believe the recipe is the better place for this to live. I just<br>
> copied the description from the code iirc.<br>
><br>
<br>
</span>I think its ok on second thought if its the case where it will be used<br>
more often then probably a provision to be able to remove it from a<br>
soc layer<br>
would be enough<br>
<span class=""><br>
> Incidentally, this fails to build on musl so I've just disabled it on<br>
> musl for now.<br>
><br>
<br>
</span>OK<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
> Cheers,<br>
><br>
> Richard<br>
--<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Openembedded-core mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org">Openembedded-core@lists.<wbr>openembedded.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.openembedded.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/openembedded-<wbr>core</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>