<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On 13 April 2017 at 08:02, Alexander Kanavin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com" target="_blank">alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.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 04/13/2017 05:19 AM, Zhixiong Chi wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
autoconf-archive is not in oe-core, is it?<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes,it is.<br>
As Alex said, it shouldn't depend the recipe from the other layers.<br>
I will try to move autoconf-archive into oe-core next step.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
First research other ways to fix the issue please; we try to avoid unnecessary bloat in oe-core.<br>
<br>
For example, how about deleting the conflicting macros from autoconf-archive, and making it depend on gnome-common? Or researching if we can get rid of gnome-common altogether in oe-core.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I had a quick look at this. We have three recipes in oe-core that "need" gnome-common (python3-pygobject, gnome-desktop3, matchbox-desktop). The only meaningful usage of gnome-common in their <a href="http://configure.ac">configure.ac</a>'s is GNOME_COMPILE_WARNINGS().</div><div><br></div><div>with this in mind I would not object to just the original patch with the autoconf-archive dependency removed. However, it would be nice to build test the meta-openembedded recipes that depend on gnome-common (and add a dependency to autoconf-archive to the recipes that seem to need it). </div><div><br></div><div>Jussi</div></div></div></div>