From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com (mail-wm0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 810C3755F8 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 16:14:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f52.google.com with SMTP id 128so125773781wmz.1 for ; Tue, 02 Feb 2016 08:14:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=XP/Iz592Z6gyyHD1zUs2kNgPP4v89ah8RX3fkFAmnQk=; b=QEV6gSIdPpnUiRVJjeaIliiSN6N2i9ZKs5TNW/1gu0AzlquFsBFV52hxr/120m6oYM YXm4ldAtvzq8wiqOzqM1MoGbJRRD75Khqcd6wMO3eIz+3fmqRTwmDl5J/2rUBmnjotEK 24ObyM6eqHvGdsCOSZEvb3U1oqrY+lr2FvRbceU1aRVDpBpOhl0rABWpySeTYO5JqA4q VbJAmlFcdVOrYqDIMnucJuneHFJQPyL8jcIUad+JuizYemhiDibUh71d8khuL/LYN1lN 3eNd8FwXF3em5u7y7ALkF8YXK6ssodJk7GO7ZTV7yI7K7vcXcRyh6XIYnmUSfXs+0kCd hxaw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=XP/Iz592Z6gyyHD1zUs2kNgPP4v89ah8RX3fkFAmnQk=; b=lroIlfIspao82nSCwap34hMyg9i3bMWSgEhI6YWkNKxWsepY0j7+RAK5sIa3IMh3zd gttAfDvo0d6+OMMdTxq+0lsY/u2EptQGlJcruKOnMwrg5udME/DUFunEwWofFKtTnFFD EHQoMdFoajYGYLG5y4IO/S/llVOCjPhgATyrZu9lHC/XWJgh5sCaxPwgDmZK8YtcFI+3 EIgF3RGkMZaOYvmV8qWT5cODMDvFFBrbu92dqyK0EECwSJ4X4KLBKJ9LGmN66VeyEBS6 +Q6d+efMbaAc2yDcFuM3OFf/HJZia0n9KwcvZoLxcsX2EkCJF3ThIfw5z5u0reCzHxbG QtaQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQ5llityFg0G8YkVCg0PAAbtAlD6ShfiRy4wQiMbnqQd8qid5+zKF34URgw+9pLHw== X-Received: by 10.194.113.38 with SMTP id iv6mr29270239wjb.19.1454429673124; Tue, 02 Feb 2016 08:14:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (ip-86-49-34-37.net.upcbroadband.cz. [86.49.34.37]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c7sm2681428wmd.13.2016.02.02.08.14.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Feb 2016 08:14:31 -0800 (PST) From: Martin Jansa X-Google-Original-From: Martin Jansa Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:17:26 +0100 To: Richard Purdie Message-ID: <20160202161726.GC2607@jama> References: <1454424587-4251-1-git-send-email-mac@mcrowe.com> <1454428874.27087.87.camel@linuxfoundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1454428874.27087.87.camel@linuxfoundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Cc: Mike Crowe , openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Remove unhelpful default value of EXTRA_OEMAKE 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, 02 Feb 2016 16:14:35 -0000 X-Groupsio-MsgNum: 77322 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2/5bycvrmDh4d1IB" Content-Disposition: inline --2/5bycvrmDh4d1IB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:01:14PM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 14:49 +0000, Mike Crowe wrote: > > bitbake.conf currently contains: > >=20 > > EXTRA_OEMAKE =3D "-e MAKEFLAGS=3D" > >=20 > > Back in November[1] I submitted a patch that allowed this default > > value to be overridden without affecting anything else that was > > appended to it. I received feedback that the default value was no > > longer useful and that it would be good to get rid of it. > >=20 > > So, this patch series fixes the two recipes that still appear to be > > relying on the previous default and then makes the default > > EXTRA_OEMAKE =3D "". After these changes core-image-sato builds > > successfully for me (although I have not run it.) > >=20 > > Mike. > >=20 > > [1] http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2015-No > > vember/112393.html >=20 > This is a pretty major change and we likely need a bit more of an idea > of impact. >=20 > Which architectures did you test? Often, x86 is a bad choice here and > we'd need something cross (arm/mips/ppc) to ensure it really is doing > the right things. We also need to assess a bit more than just sato. We > can run this up on the autobuilder and see what happens. >=20 > A post to the architecture list is probably needed so everyone knows > this is happening (or at least being considered). >=20 > I do worry how much of meta-oe may be affected by this.=20 >=20 > Martin: Any opinion on this? I can give it a shot in next rounds of jenkins builds, but the state is already quite bad, so it will be hard to spot new issues. --=20 Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com --2/5bycvrmDh4d1IB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlaw1pUACgkQN1Ujt2V2gBxtMACeNXwGHt8c8qwSBF2PCudyYHxY MyEAnjnQwj23/QU2AuX8ZjtMMf7Gn6FN =dmFx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2/5bycvrmDh4d1IB--