Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/2] add gpu-viv-bin-mx6q-dev to meta-qt5's packagegroup-qt5-toolchain-target

From: "Andreas Müller" <schnitzeltony@googlemail.com>
To: Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>
Cc: "meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org" <meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org>
Subject: Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/2] add gpu-viv-bin-mx6q-dev to meta-qt5's packagegroup-qt5-toolchain-target
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 00:58:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALbNGRRrAA+79dD1VvstT13zdsF_BVatwHh_42btnjd8gr2tOw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAP9ODKq-+2gZ+1C9beiEte44UEgY-7UFB2twd1zEWOUSY-=V5w@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Otavio Salvador
<otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> Hello Andreas,
>
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Andreas Müller
> <schnitzeltony@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Andreas Müller
>> <schnitzeltony@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
>>>> Do you think it works out of box doing this change?
>>>>
>> Ok I updated to current meta-fsl-arm and would like to come back to this:
>>
>> The patch I send appended packagegroup-qt5-toolchain-target so that
>> GL/GLES headers were installed on the target. I've found this
>> necessity when testing the qt-creator patches for meta-qt5: To compile
>> and debug my sample projects, the headers were required.
>
> Yes, I understood it.
>
>> After building latest imx-gpu-viv I don't understand your suggestion -
>> maybe it was based on old gpu-viv-bin-mx6q or I misunderstand
>> something.
>
> Yes it was but it should be the same in imx-gpu-viv...
>
>> With current meta-fsl master the -dev packages look good to
>> me and I would simply append ALL dev-packages to
>> packagegroup-qt5-toolchain-target. The only contents added to image
>> are includes and pkg-config so there should be no harm.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> I agree with the goal but you raised a point. Is it good to have the
> -dev packages split along subpackages?
>
> I am starting to think it is not worth it. The packaging is way more
> simple if we merge the -dev packages all together and to be honest
> from support point of view it simplifies things as well.
>
> Anyone wishing to do development is aware more resources are need. If
> this is a sysroot of a SDK this is not an issue but is it an issue for
> in-target development?
>
Aahh I see so one -dev for all - like others do.

Coming back to my patch: For reasons I don't look though currently (OK
- I moved from dizzy to master for oe-core/meta-oe),
compiling/debugging on target with

IMAGE_FEATURES += "dev-pkgs dbg-pkgs"

works fine without this patch. The GL/GLES headers are all there. I
think this patch would have wiped away things going wrong elsewhere -
so I suggest to forget it.

Andreas