Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] lto.inc: Add global LTO distro policy file

["Khem Raj" <raj.khem@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 4:50 AM Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2020-03-24 at 13:27 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 04:25:29PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> > > Distros which want to enable LTO can utilize this file, it only
> > > covers
> > > packages from OE-Core, other layers should include there own
> > > exclusion
> > > list for recipe which dont work with LTO
> > > ...
> > > +++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/lto.inc
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
> > > +LTO_pn-glibc = ""
> > > +LTO_pn-gcc-runtime = ""
> > > +LTO_pn-libgcc-initial = ""
> > > +LTO_pn-libgcc = ""
> > > +LTO_pn-libpam = ""
> > > +LTO_pn-elfutils = ""
> > > +LTO_pn-perl = ""
> > > +LTO_pn-busybox = ""
> > > +LTO_pn-libxcrypt = ""
> > > +LTO_pn-curl = ""
> > > +LTO_pn-libcap = ""
> > > +LTO_pn-python3 = ""
> > > +LTO_pn-libproxy = ""
> > > +LTO_pn-libbsd = ""
> > > ...
> >
> > It would be better to have these in the individual recipes,
> > it is much easier to understand what is going on when all
> > recipe-specific information is in the recipe.
>
> I disagree. These files do let someone working on specific enablement
> see the status collectively and allow people to opt in/out of a given
> development feature.
>
> At some point in the future that can tip into making more sense in a
> recipe but its a staged process and things often make sense to start
> like this.

yeah. Maybe there should be a distro feature knob this inc file should
add which can be used by recipes
for an exception like adding configure options
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>