[meta-freescale] [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/2] add gpu-viv-bin-mx6q-dev to meta-qt5's packagegroup-qt5-toolchain-target
otavio at ossystems.com.br
Fri Feb 13 15:24:24 PST 2015
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Andreas Müller
<schnitzeltony at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Andreas Müller
> <schnitzeltony at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Otavio Salvador <otavio at 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
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
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
More information about the meta-freescale