* [meta-oe][PATCH] giflib: don't depend on libsm if x11 is unavailable
@ 2012-02-02 14:03 Andreas Oberritter
2012-02-08 18:11 ` Andreas Oberritter
2012-02-08 18:41 ` Otavio Salvador
0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Oberritter @ 2012-02-02 14:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-devel
If DISTRO_FEATURES doesn't contain x11, libsm is not available.
As libsm is optional, the dependency is changed to be conditional.
There's no need to alter configure flags, because without x11,
libsm cannot be picked up accidentially. Because this just fixes
a missing dependency failure without x11, no PR bump is required
either.
Signed-off-by: Andreas Oberritter <obi@opendreambox.org>
---
meta-oe/recipes-devtools/giflib/giflib_4.1.6.bb | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/giflib/giflib_4.1.6.bb b/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/giflib/giflib_4.1.6.bb
index bd7b495..4e782e2 100644
--- a/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/giflib/giflib_4.1.6.bb
+++ b/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/giflib/giflib_4.1.6.bb
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ SRC_URI = "${SOURCEFORGE_MIRROR}/giflib/${BP}.tar.bz2"
inherit autotools
-DEPENDS = "libsm"
+DEPENDS = "${@base_contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'x11', 'libsm', '', d)}"
PACKAGES += "${PN}-utils"
FILES_${PN} = "${libdir}/libgif.so.*"
--
1.7.5.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [meta-oe][PATCH] giflib: don't depend on libsm if x11 is unavailable
2012-02-02 14:03 [meta-oe][PATCH] giflib: don't depend on libsm if x11 is unavailable Andreas Oberritter
@ 2012-02-08 18:11 ` Andreas Oberritter
2012-02-08 18:41 ` Otavio Salvador
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Oberritter @ 2012-02-08 18:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-devel
Ping.
Patchwork URL: http://patches.openembedded.org/patch/20561/
On 02.02.2012 15:03, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> If DISTRO_FEATURES doesn't contain x11, libsm is not available.
> As libsm is optional, the dependency is changed to be conditional.
> There's no need to alter configure flags, because without x11,
> libsm cannot be picked up accidentially. Because this just fixes
> a missing dependency failure without x11, no PR bump is required
> either.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Oberritter <obi@opendreambox.org>
> ---
> meta-oe/recipes-devtools/giflib/giflib_4.1.6.bb | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/giflib/giflib_4.1.6.bb b/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/giflib/giflib_4.1.6.bb
> index bd7b495..4e782e2 100644
> --- a/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/giflib/giflib_4.1.6.bb
> +++ b/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/giflib/giflib_4.1.6.bb
> @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ SRC_URI = "${SOURCEFORGE_MIRROR}/giflib/${BP}.tar.bz2"
>
> inherit autotools
>
> -DEPENDS = "libsm"
> +DEPENDS = "${@base_contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'x11', 'libsm', '', d)}"
>
> PACKAGES += "${PN}-utils"
> FILES_${PN} = "${libdir}/libgif.so.*"
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [meta-oe][PATCH] giflib: don't depend on libsm if x11 is unavailable
2012-02-02 14:03 [meta-oe][PATCH] giflib: don't depend on libsm if x11 is unavailable Andreas Oberritter
2012-02-08 18:11 ` Andreas Oberritter
@ 2012-02-08 18:41 ` Otavio Salvador
2012-02-08 19:35 ` Andreas Oberritter
1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Otavio Salvador @ 2012-02-08 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-devel
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:03, Andreas Oberritter <obi@opendreambox.org>wrote:
> There's no need to alter configure flags, because without x11,
> libsm cannot be picked up accidentially. Because this just fixes
> a missing dependency failure without x11, no PR bump is required
> either.
>
I do prefer a clear configure option depending on if it is going to use or
not libsm otherwise if user has built it, it is going to be taken. Also,
please PR bump in any case since it can help spot other possible failures
that we'd not catch otherwise.
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [meta-oe][PATCH] giflib: don't depend on libsm if x11 is unavailable
2012-02-08 18:41 ` Otavio Salvador
@ 2012-02-08 19:35 ` Andreas Oberritter
2012-02-08 19:48 ` Otavio Salvador
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Oberritter @ 2012-02-08 19:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-devel
On 08.02.2012 19:41, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:03, Andreas Oberritter <obi@opendreambox.org>wrote:
>
>> There's no need to alter configure flags, because without x11,
>> libsm cannot be picked up accidentially. Because this just fixes
>> a missing dependency failure without x11, no PR bump is required
>> either.
>>
>
> I do prefer a clear configure option depending on if it is going to use or
> not libsm otherwise if user has built it, it is going to be taken.
Currently, there are two possibilities:
1.) x11 is in DISTRO_FEATURES
-> libsm is built, giflib is built with libsm
2.) x11 is not in DISTRO_FEATURES
-> giflib build is broken, because libsm does not exist in this
configuration
Therefore, the scenario you're describing cannot happen.
> Also,
> please PR bump in any case since it can help spot other possible failures
> that we'd not catch otherwise.
I already explained in the commit message, why a PR bump is not needed.
Can you please explain which other possible failures you're expecting,
so I can learn why my reasoning may be wrong?
This patch only fixes an unavailable build dependency at bitbake level,
nothing more.
Regards,
Andreas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [meta-oe][PATCH] giflib: don't depend on libsm if x11 is unavailable
2012-02-08 19:35 ` Andreas Oberritter
@ 2012-02-08 19:48 ` Otavio Salvador
2012-02-09 0:54 ` Andreas Oberritter
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Otavio Salvador @ 2012-02-08 19:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-devel
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 17:35, Andreas Oberritter <obi@opendreambox.org>wrote:
> I already explained in the commit message, why a PR bump is not needed.
> Can you please explain which other possible failures you're expecting,
> so I can learn why my reasoning may be wrong?
>
> This patch only fixes an unavailable build dependency at bitbake level,
> nothing more.
>
Can the user call:
bitbake libsm
and then build giflib? in case of positive, we need to enforce have or not
it linked.
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [meta-oe][PATCH] giflib: don't depend on libsm if x11 is unavailable
2012-02-08 19:48 ` Otavio Salvador
@ 2012-02-09 0:54 ` Andreas Oberritter
2012-02-09 12:41 ` [meta-oe][PATCH] giflib: don't link against libx11, don't depend on libsm Andreas Oberritter
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Oberritter @ 2012-02-09 0:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-devel
On 08.02.2012 20:48, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 17:35, Andreas Oberritter <obi@opendreambox.org>wrote:
>
>> I already explained in the commit message, why a PR bump is not needed.
>> Can you please explain which other possible failures you're expecting,
>> so I can learn why my reasoning may be wrong?
>>
>> This patch only fixes an unavailable build dependency at bitbake level,
>> nothing more.
>>
>
> Can the user call:
>
> bitbake libsm
>
> and then build giflib? in case of positive, we need to enforce have or not
> it linked.
At the time I created the patch, the user couldn't run bitbake libsm
(for the same reason that it wouldn't be built automatically through
giflib's DEPENDS).
That said, I updated the repos after your mail and ran bitbake libsm in
order to get the error message again, but the error vanished.
Apparently, an indirect dependency on libx11 was dropped during the last
few weeks. I searched the logs, but didn't find the change. Strange.
Now, many x11 packages got built even though x11 still wasn't listed in
my DISTRO_FEATURES.
Anyway, please consider this patch obsolete. I'll probably resend an
updated version together with other patches to disable some more x11
libraries on demand.
Regards,
Andreas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [meta-oe][PATCH] giflib: don't link against libx11, don't depend on libsm
2012-02-09 0:54 ` Andreas Oberritter
@ 2012-02-09 12:41 ` Andreas Oberritter
2012-02-09 12:47 ` Otavio Salvador
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Oberritter @ 2012-02-09 12:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-devel
On 09.02.2012 01:54, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> On 08.02.2012 20:48, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 17:35, Andreas Oberritter <obi@opendreambox.org>wrote:
>>
>>> I already explained in the commit message, why a PR bump is not needed.
>>> Can you please explain which other possible failures you're expecting,
>>> so I can learn why my reasoning may be wrong?
>>>
>>> This patch only fixes an unavailable build dependency at bitbake level,
>>> nothing more.
>>>
>>
>> Can the user call:
>>
>> bitbake libsm
>>
>> and then build giflib? in case of positive, we need to enforce have or not
>> it linked.
>
> At the time I created the patch, the user couldn't run bitbake libsm
> (for the same reason that it wouldn't be built automatically through
> giflib's DEPENDS).
>
> That said, I updated the repos after your mail and ran bitbake libsm in
> order to get the error message again, but the error vanished.
> Apparently, an indirect dependency on libx11 was dropped during the last
> few weeks. I searched the logs, but didn't find the change. Strange.
> Now, many x11 packages got built even though x11 still wasn't listed in
> my DISTRO_FEATURES.
>
> Anyway, please consider this patch obsolete. I'll probably resend an
> updated version together with other patches to disable some more x11
> libraries on demand.
I did some further research regarding giflib:
- giflib doesn't depend on libSM alone, but optionally depends on
libX11. When linked against libX11, it also links agains libSM and
libICE, under certain conditions. Since libSM does not depend on
libX11, the current giflib build is non-deterministic.
- Debian's/Ubuntu's giflib gets configured with --disable-x11
unconditionally.
So we have two options:
1.) Pass --disable-x11 unconditionally like Debian/Ubuntu
2.) Add virtual/libx11 to DEPENDS, if x11 is defined in
DISTRO_FEATURES, and add --enable/diable-x11 to EXTRA_OECONF
Because the current recipe didn't depend on libX11 and no one
complained about it, I question the usefulness of linking giflib
against x11. Therefore I vote for option 1 (see patch below).
What does giflib do if linked against libX11?
- It builds a tool called gif2x11
- DumpScreen2Gif() gains support for dumping X11 windows
Regards,
Andreas
From eb1d09faa42fd7532338e0cc858ca1ff681bcaf8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andreas Oberritter <obi@opendreambox.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 13:34:52 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] giflib: don't link against libx11, don't depend on libsm
libsm wasn't used unless libx11 was built before giflib. Therefore
drop the dependency on libsm and disable x11 unconditionally like
Debian does.
Signed-off-by: Andreas Oberritter <obi@opendreambox.org>
---
meta-oe/recipes-devtools/giflib/giflib_4.1.6.bb | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/giflib/giflib_4.1.6.bb b/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/giflib/giflib_4.1.6.bb
index bd7b495..e1a0777 100644
--- a/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/giflib/giflib_4.1.6.bb
+++ b/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/giflib/giflib_4.1.6.bb
@@ -2,13 +2,13 @@ DESCRIPTION = "shared library for GIF images"
SECTION = "libs"
LICENSE = "MIT"
LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=ae11c61b04b2917be39b11f78d71519a"
-PR = "r2"
+PR = "r3"
SRC_URI = "${SOURCEFORGE_MIRROR}/giflib/${BP}.tar.bz2"
inherit autotools
-DEPENDS = "libsm"
+EXTRA_OECONF = "--disable-x11"
PACKAGES += "${PN}-utils"
FILES_${PN} = "${libdir}/libgif.so.*"
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [meta-oe][PATCH] giflib: don't link against libx11, don't depend on libsm
2012-02-09 12:41 ` [meta-oe][PATCH] giflib: don't link against libx11, don't depend on libsm Andreas Oberritter
@ 2012-02-09 12:47 ` Otavio Salvador
2012-02-09 13:55 ` Paul Eggleton
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Otavio Salvador @ 2012-02-09 12:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-devel
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:41, Andreas Oberritter <obi@opendreambox.org>wrote:
> 1.) Pass --disable-x11 unconditionally like Debian/Ubuntu
> 2.) Add virtual/libx11 to DEPENDS, if x11 is defined in
> DISTRO_FEATURES, and add --enable/diable-x11 to EXTRA_OECONF
>
> Because the current recipe didn't depend on libX11 and no one
> complained about it, I question the usefulness of linking giflib
> against x11. Therefore I vote for option 1 (see patch below).
>
I voce for 1 too.
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [meta-oe][PATCH] giflib: don't link against libx11, don't depend on libsm
2012-02-09 12:41 ` [meta-oe][PATCH] giflib: don't link against libx11, don't depend on libsm Andreas Oberritter
2012-02-09 12:47 ` Otavio Salvador
@ 2012-02-09 13:55 ` Paul Eggleton
2012-02-09 14:02 ` Paul Eggleton
2012-02-09 18:50 ` Koen Kooi
3 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Paul Eggleton @ 2012-02-09 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-devel, Henning Heinold
On Thursday 09 February 2012 13:41:53 Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> On 09.02.2012 01:54, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> > On 08.02.2012 20:48, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 17:35, Andreas Oberritter
<obi@opendreambox.org>wrote:
> >>> I already explained in the commit message, why a PR bump is not needed.
> >>> Can you please explain which other possible failures you're expecting,
> >>> so I can learn why my reasoning may be wrong?
> >>>
> >>> This patch only fixes an unavailable build dependency at bitbake level,
> >>> nothing more.
> >>
> >> Can the user call:
> >>
> >> bitbake libsm
> >>
> >> and then build giflib? in case of positive, we need to enforce have or
> >> not
> >> it linked.
> >
> > At the time I created the patch, the user couldn't run bitbake libsm
> > (for the same reason that it wouldn't be built automatically through
> > giflib's DEPENDS).
> >
> > That said, I updated the repos after your mail and ran bitbake libsm in
> > order to get the error message again, but the error vanished.
> > Apparently, an indirect dependency on libx11 was dropped during the last
> > few weeks. I searched the logs, but didn't find the change. Strange.
> > Now, many x11 packages got built even though x11 still wasn't listed in
> > my DISTRO_FEATURES.
> >
> > Anyway, please consider this patch obsolete. I'll probably resend an
> > updated version together with other patches to disable some more x11
> > libraries on demand.
>
> I did some further research regarding giflib:
>
> - giflib doesn't depend on libSM alone, but optionally depends on
> libX11. When linked against libX11, it also links agains libSM and
> libICE, under certain conditions. Since libSM does not depend on
> libX11, the current giflib build is non-deterministic.
>
> - Debian's/Ubuntu's giflib gets configured with --disable-x11
> unconditionally.
>
> So we have two options:
>
> 1.) Pass --disable-x11 unconditionally like Debian/Ubuntu
> 2.) Add virtual/libx11 to DEPENDS, if x11 is defined in
> DISTRO_FEATURES, and add --enable/diable-x11 to EXTRA_OECONF
>
> Because the current recipe didn't depend on libX11 and no one
> complained about it, I question the usefulness of linking giflib
> against x11. Therefore I vote for option 1 (see patch below).
>
> What does giflib do if linked against libX11?
> - It builds a tool called gif2x11
> - DumpScreen2Gif() gains support for dumping X11 windows
I'd agree with disabling it as well. According to google it was Henning who
added libsm as a dependency in OE-Classic. Henning, do you remember the reason
for adding this, and is it still valid?
Cheers,
Paul
--
Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [meta-oe][PATCH] giflib: don't link against libx11, don't depend on libsm
2012-02-09 12:41 ` [meta-oe][PATCH] giflib: don't link against libx11, don't depend on libsm Andreas Oberritter
2012-02-09 12:47 ` Otavio Salvador
2012-02-09 13:55 ` Paul Eggleton
@ 2012-02-09 14:02 ` Paul Eggleton
2012-02-09 19:32 ` Henning Heinold
2012-02-09 18:50 ` Koen Kooi
3 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Paul Eggleton @ 2012-02-09 14:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-devel, Henning Heinold
On Thursday 09 February 2012 13:41:53 Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> On 09.02.2012 01:54, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> > On 08.02.2012 20:48, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 17:35, Andreas Oberritter
<obi@opendreambox.org>wrote:
> >>> I already explained in the commit message, why a PR bump is not needed.
> >>> Can you please explain which other possible failures you're expecting,
> >>> so I can learn why my reasoning may be wrong?
> >>>
> >>> This patch only fixes an unavailable build dependency at bitbake level,
> >>> nothing more.
> >>
> >> Can the user call:
> >>
> >> bitbake libsm
> >>
> >> and then build giflib? in case of positive, we need to enforce have or
> >> not
> >> it linked.
> >
> > At the time I created the patch, the user couldn't run bitbake libsm
> > (for the same reason that it wouldn't be built automatically through
> > giflib's DEPENDS).
> >
> > That said, I updated the repos after your mail and ran bitbake libsm in
> > order to get the error message again, but the error vanished.
> > Apparently, an indirect dependency on libx11 was dropped during the last
> > few weeks. I searched the logs, but didn't find the change. Strange.
> > Now, many x11 packages got built even though x11 still wasn't listed in
> > my DISTRO_FEATURES.
> >
> > Anyway, please consider this patch obsolete. I'll probably resend an
> > updated version together with other patches to disable some more x11
> > libraries on demand.
>
> I did some further research regarding giflib:
>
> - giflib doesn't depend on libSM alone, but optionally depends on
> libX11. When linked against libX11, it also links agains libSM and
> libICE, under certain conditions. Since libSM does not depend on
> libX11, the current giflib build is non-deterministic.
>
> - Debian's/Ubuntu's giflib gets configured with --disable-x11
> unconditionally.
>
> So we have two options:
>
> 1.) Pass --disable-x11 unconditionally like Debian/Ubuntu
> 2.) Add virtual/libx11 to DEPENDS, if x11 is defined in
> DISTRO_FEATURES, and add --enable/diable-x11 to EXTRA_OECONF
>
> Because the current recipe didn't depend on libX11 and no one
> complained about it, I question the usefulness of linking giflib
> against x11. Therefore I vote for option 1 (see patch below).
>
> What does giflib do if linked against libX11?
> - It builds a tool called gif2x11
> - DumpScreen2Gif() gains support for dumping X11 windows
I'd agree with disabling it as well. According to google it was Henning who
added libsm as a dependency in OE-Classic. Henning, do you remember the reason
for adding this, and is it still valid?
Cheers,
Paul
[resend due to incorrect email address]
--
Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [meta-oe][PATCH] giflib: don't link against libx11, don't depend on libsm
2012-02-09 12:41 ` [meta-oe][PATCH] giflib: don't link against libx11, don't depend on libsm Andreas Oberritter
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2012-02-09 14:02 ` Paul Eggleton
@ 2012-02-09 18:50 ` Koen Kooi
3 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Koen Kooi @ 2012-02-09 18:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-devel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Op 09-02-12 13:41, Andreas Oberritter schreef:
> On 09.02.2012 01:54, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
>> On 08.02.2012 20:48, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 17:35, Andreas Oberritter
>>> <obi@opendreambox.org>wrote:
>>>
>>>> I already explained in the commit message, why a PR bump is not
>>>> needed. Can you please explain which other possible failures you're
>>>> expecting, so I can learn why my reasoning may be wrong?
>>>>
>>>> This patch only fixes an unavailable build dependency at bitbake
>>>> level, nothing more.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can the user call:
>>>
>>> bitbake libsm
>>>
>>> and then build giflib? in case of positive, we need to enforce have
>>> or not it linked.
>>
>> At the time I created the patch, the user couldn't run bitbake libsm
>> (for the same reason that it wouldn't be built automatically through
>> giflib's DEPENDS).
>>
>> That said, I updated the repos after your mail and ran bitbake libsm
>> in order to get the error message again, but the error vanished.
>> Apparently, an indirect dependency on libx11 was dropped during the
>> last few weeks. I searched the logs, but didn't find the change.
>> Strange. Now, many x11 packages got built even though x11 still wasn't
>> listed in my DISTRO_FEATURES.
>>
>> Anyway, please consider this patch obsolete. I'll probably resend an
>> updated version together with other patches to disable some more x11
>> libraries on demand.
>
> I did some further research regarding giflib:
>
> - giflib doesn't depend on libSM alone, but optionally depends on libX11.
> When linked against libX11, it also links agains libSM and libICE, under
> certain conditions. Since libSM does not depend on libX11, the current
> giflib build is non-deterministic.
>
> - Debian's/Ubuntu's giflib gets configured with --disable-x11
> unconditionally.
>
> So we have two options:
>
> 1.) Pass --disable-x11 unconditionally like Debian/Ubuntu 2.) Add
> virtual/libx11 to DEPENDS, if x11 is defined in DISTRO_FEATURES, and add
> --enable/diable-x11 to EXTRA_OECONF
I'd go for 1)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iEYEARECAAYFAk80FV4ACgkQMkyGM64RGpF1qQCdEZNQIneqMvodDIP02X3FLWtG
xYQAnj9BM2jzRHa6mPJDy4NfcYo28vHR
=iwwe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [meta-oe][PATCH] giflib: don't link against libx11, don't depend on libsm
2012-02-09 14:02 ` Paul Eggleton
@ 2012-02-09 19:32 ` Henning Heinold
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Henning Heinold @ 2012-02-09 19:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Eggleton; +Cc: openembedded-devel
On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 02:02:51PM +0000, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> I'd agree with disabling it as well. According to google it was Henning who
> added libsm as a dependency in OE-Classic. Henning, do you remember the reason
> for adding this, and is it still valid?
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
Sorry no idea, why I added it. But I vote for option 1 too, so folks without X11 needs
do not have to build X11.
Bye Henning
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-02-09 19:40 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-02-02 14:03 [meta-oe][PATCH] giflib: don't depend on libsm if x11 is unavailable Andreas Oberritter
2012-02-08 18:11 ` Andreas Oberritter
2012-02-08 18:41 ` Otavio Salvador
2012-02-08 19:35 ` Andreas Oberritter
2012-02-08 19:48 ` Otavio Salvador
2012-02-09 0:54 ` Andreas Oberritter
2012-02-09 12:41 ` [meta-oe][PATCH] giflib: don't link against libx11, don't depend on libsm Andreas Oberritter
2012-02-09 12:47 ` Otavio Salvador
2012-02-09 13:55 ` Paul Eggleton
2012-02-09 14:02 ` Paul Eggleton
2012-02-09 19:32 ` Henning Heinold
2012-02-09 18:50 ` Koen Kooi
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.