From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dan.rpsys.net (5751f4a1.skybroadband.com [87.81.244.161]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82A0E77D53 for ; Tue, 16 May 2017 13:45:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hex ([192.168.3.34]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-3) with ESMTPSA id v4GDjFdj003994 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 16 May 2017 14:45:16 +0100 Message-ID: <1494942315.27342.33.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: Richard Purdie To: Markus Lehtonen , openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 14:45:15 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2-0ubuntu3.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.11 (dan.rpsys.net [192.168.3.1]); Tue, 16 May 2017 14:45:16 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at dan X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/20] support profile-optimized build for Python X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 13:45:19 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 16:18 +0300, Markus Lehtonen wrote: > This patchset makes it possible to make a PGO (profile-guided- > optimization) build of python. This version of the patchset is almost > identical to v1 submitted back in February, with these changes: > - rebased on top of latest oe-core master - exclude profile data for > Modules/posixmodule of Python 2.7 as it was not working correctly > > [YOCTO #9338] > I'm wondering if recipe specific sysroots might have made this problem a bit easier? It should now be possible to build the two packages with conflicting files and as long as you exclude the recipe from the shlibs code and set the RPROVIDES correctly, it should all work without as many invasive changes? Of course I haven't tested that... Cheers, Richard