Re: [PATCH 1/1] add support for debian build profiles

[Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>]

On 31.12.21 12:23, Moessbauer, Felix (T RDA IOT SES-DE) wrote:
>>> diff --git a/meta/classes/dpkg-base.bbclass
>>> b/meta/classes/dpkg-base.bbclass index 6704385b..c1588528 100644
>>> --- a/meta/classes/dpkg-base.bbclass
>>> +++ b/meta/classes/dpkg-base.bbclass
>>> @@ -13,6 +13,8 @@ inherit deb-dl-dir
>>>  DEPENDS ?= ""
>>>
>>>  DEPENDS_append_riscv64 = "${@' crossbuild-essential-riscv64' if
>> d.getVar('ISAR_CROSS_COMPILE', True) == '1' and d.getVar('PN') != 'crossbuild-
>> essential-riscv64' else ''}"
>>> +DEB_BUILD_PROFILES ?= ""
>>> +DEB_BUILD_PROFILES_CROSS ?= "cross"
>>
>> Do we really need two variables? Is the DEB_BUILD_PROFILES not sufficient?
> 
> Well... I implemented this patch series while working on a layer that has to support both arm64 and x64.
> With just one variable the inline python functions became a pattern because (depending on the package), various profiles had to be activated only for arm64 (e.g. like "nocheck", "nodoc").
> That's why I prefer to have both variables.
> Is there any strong reason against it (apart from having two variables to maintain)?
> 

The central pattern to append "cross" to DEB_BUILD_PROFILES if
cross-compiling makes sense. I just wonder if making that "cross"
appendix configurable via a variable is actually necessary. Also, that
var name is confusing, may suggest that DEB_BUILD_PROFILES_CROSS is used
alternatively to DEB_BUILD_PROFILES if cross-compiling.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, T RDA IOT
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux