From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.windriver.com (mail1.windriver.com [147.11.146.13]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F886AEF7 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:34:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca.corp.ad.wrs.com [147.11.189.40]) by mail1.windriver.com (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r5S9YIcf025926 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 28 Jun 2013 02:34:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.224.162.205] (128.224.162.205) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.342.3; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 02:34:17 -0700 Message-ID: <51CD5880.7000102@windriver.com> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:33:52 +0800 From: Kang Kai User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Eggleton References: <0b6b3178a957a5f1719d6e7d3de74ef10e997266.1372403777.git.kai.kang@windriver.com> <2137104.dM5Hszjkko@helios> In-Reply-To: <2137104.dM5Hszjkko@helios> X-Originating-IP: [128.224.162.205] Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Disable build qt related packagegroups on mips64 with 64 bits userspace 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: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:34:45 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 2013年06月28日 17:00, Paul Eggleton wrote: > Hi Kai, > > On Friday 28 June 2013 15:48:47 Kai Kang wrote: >> Because qt could not be built on mips64 with 64 bits userspace, set >> COMPATIBLE_HOST for qt related packagegroups to disable them on mips64 >> with 64 bit userspace too. >> >> Signed-off-by: Kai Kang >> --- >> .../packagegroups/packagegroup-core-qt.bb | 3 +++ >> .../packagegroups/packagegroup-core-qt4e.bb | 3 +++ >> .../packagegroup-qt-toolchain-target.inc | 3 +++ >> 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/meta/recipes-qt/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-qt.bb >> b/meta/recipes-qt/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-qt.bb index >> 315df33..c993242 100644 >> --- a/meta/recipes-qt/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-qt.bb >> +++ b/meta/recipes-qt/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-qt.bb >> @@ -6,6 +6,9 @@ DESCRIPTION = "Qt package groups" >> LICENSE = "MIT" >> PR = "r4" >> >> +# Qt4 could NOT be built on MIPS64 with 64 bits userspace >> +COMPATIBLE_HOST_mips64 = "mips64.*-linux-gnun32" >> + >> inherit packagegroup >> >> PACKAGES = "${PN}-demoapps" >> diff --git a/meta/recipes-qt/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-qt4e.bb >> b/meta/recipes-qt/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-qt4e.bb index >> 9263828..6ef844f 100644 >> --- a/meta/recipes-qt/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-qt4e.bb >> +++ b/meta/recipes-qt/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-qt4e.bb >> @@ -2,6 +2,9 @@ SUMMARY = "Qt for Embedded Linux (Qt without X11)" >> PR = "r2" >> LICENSE = "MIT" >> >> +# Qt4 could NOT be built on MIPS64 with 64 bits userspace >> +COMPATIBLE_HOST_mips64 = "mips64.*-linux-gnun32" >> + >> inherit packagegroup >> >> # For backwards compatibility after rename >> diff --git >> a/meta/recipes-qt/packagegroups/packagegroup-qt-toolchain-target.inc >> b/meta/recipes-qt/packagegroups/packagegroup-qt-toolchain-target.inc index >> 8413eec..fc1ccba 100644 >> --- a/meta/recipes-qt/packagegroups/packagegroup-qt-toolchain-target.inc >> +++ b/meta/recipes-qt/packagegroups/packagegroup-qt-toolchain-target.inc >> @@ -1,5 +1,8 @@ >> LICENSE = "MIT" >> >> +# Qt4 could NOT be built on MIPS64 with 64 bits userspace >> +COMPATIBLE_HOST_mips64 = "mips64.*-linux-gnun32" >> + >> inherit packagegroup >> >> PACKAGEGROUP_DISABLE_COMPLEMENTARY = "1" > I'm fine with the other change; the question is is this one needed in addition? > Since the packagegroup-*qt* recipes reference packages from Qt which itself > inherits qt4x11/qt4e bbclasses, surely trying to build these will immediately > fail for mips64 anyway? Yes, it will fail immediately. What I want to do is to underline these packagegroups' build platform. If you believe that they are redundant, I retrieve the patch 2/2. Thanks, Kai > > Cheers, > Paul > -- Regards, Neil | Kai Kang