[poky] [PATCH v2] poky-tiny.conf: blacklist inappropriate image options

[Constantin Musca]

On 12/10/2012 09:31 PM, Saul Wold wrote:
> On 12/10/2012 01:07 AM, Constantin Musca wrote:
>> Blacklist all images that fail when using poky-tiny
>>
>> poky-tiny image tests:
>> 1. build-appliance-image
>>      * ERROR: Nothing RPROVIDES libx11-dev
>> 2. core-image-minimal-*
>>      * ok
>> 3. core-image-base
>>      * libcap fails at do_compile
>> 4. core-image-basic
>>      * libcap fails at do_compile
>> 5. core-image-clutter
>>      * ERROR: Nothing PROVIDES virtual/libx11
>> 6. core-image-gtk-directfb
>>      * ERROR: Nothing RPROVIDES libxt
>> 7. core-image-lsb, core-image-lsb-dev, core-image-lsb-sdk
>>      * ERROR: Nothing RPROVIDES libxt
>> 8. core-image-rt
>>      * ERROR: Multiple .bb files are due to be built which each 
>> provide virtual/kernel
>> (/home/dev/yocto/poky/meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.4.bb
>> /home/dev/yocto/poky/meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-tiny_3.4.bb).
>> 9. core-image-rt-sdk
>>      * ERROR: Nothing PROVIDES xext
>> 10. core-image-sato, core-image-sato-dev, core-image-sato-sdk
>>      * ERROR: Nothing PROVIDES libxft
>> 11. core-image-x11
>>      * ERROR: Nothing PROVIDES virtual/libx11
>> 12. q4te-demo-image
>>      * libcap fails at do_compile
>>
>> [YOCTO #2565]
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Constantin Musca <constantinx.musca at intel.com>
>> ---
>>   meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf 
>> b/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
>> index d40748e..9197a7c 100644
>> --- a/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
>> +++ b/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
>> @@ -120,3 +120,20 @@ MACHINE_ESSENTIAL_EXTRA_RDEPENDS = ""
>>   # will build perl in case this package is installed. Since we don't 
>> care about
>>   # this script for the purposes of tiny, remove the dependency from 
>> here.
>>   RDEPENDS_${PN}-mtrace_pn-eglibc = ""
>> +
>> +INHERIT += "blacklist"
> Won't this have the same problem when build from command line as the 
> last patch? I thought this was changing to an _append instead?
>
> Thanks
>     Sau!
>
>
>> +PNBLACKLIST[build-appliance-image] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-base] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-basic] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-clutter] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-gtk-directfb] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb-dev] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-rt] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-rt-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato-dev] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-x11] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[qt4e-demo-image] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>
We will not have the same problem because there are only INHERIT += 
statements (no ?= INHERIT). The _append method doesn't work because it 
adds "blacklist" too late.

Cheers,
Constantin