[oe] [meta-oe][PATCH] fio: Add PACKAGECONFIG for numa, re-enable ARM build

[Andre McCurdy]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Dominic Sacré <dominic.sacre at gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Andre,
>
> On 2015-07-17 02:46, Andre McCurdy wrote:
>>> +PACKAGECONFIG[numa] = ",--disable-numa,numactl"
>>
>> I don't think this change will work.
>>
>> The fio recipe doesn't use autotools, so the --disable-numa option set
>> via PACKAGECONFIG isn't going to have any effect unless you also
>> manually pass EXTRA_OECONF into the build somehow.
>
> Ouch, you're right. The configure script is currently only called
> indirectly (from the Makefile) and without arguments during do_compile.
>
> How about adding this simple do_configure function?
>
> do_configure() {
>     ${B}/configure ${EXTRA_OECONF}
> }

Yes, that looks like the right approach. However you should use
"./configure" instead of "${B}/configure".

The configure script is in the source directory, ie ${S}, not the
build directory, and since do_configure is run from within ${S} by
default you don't need the full path.

>>>  # ARM does not currently support NUMA
>>> -COMPATIBLE_HOST = "^((?!arm).*)$"
>>> +PACKAGECONFIG_remove_arm = "numa"
>>
>> In general, it would be better to use something like:
>>
>>   PACKAGECONFIG_NUMA = "numa"
>>   PACKAGECONFIG_NUMA_arm = ""
>>
>>   PACKAGECONFIG ??= "${PACKAGECONFIG_NUMA}"
>>
>> _remove can be a little difficult to 'over-ride', so makes things
>> harder if someone did, one day, want to experiment with enabling that
>> option from local.conf or a .bbappend.
>
> Good point. I thought the _remove was ugly, but it didn't occur to me to
> use an additional level of indirection like this.
>
>
> Dominic
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel